Talk:Blacknose shark/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): The prose is clear. One suggestion would be to use alternative words for "incurrent" and "excurrent", as I am not sure if most readers would understand these terms. Also, a definition of "light tackle" would be appreciated.
b (MoS): Follows MoS
- a (prose): The prose is clear. One suggestion would be to use alternative words for "incurrent" and "excurrent", as I am not sure if most readers would understand these terms. Also, a definition of "light tackle" would be appreciated.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The references are to reliable sources. c (OR): No OR
- a (references): Well referenced
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Covers the major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic
- a (major aspects): Covers the major areas
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
A very nice article. (I am learning about sharks!)
Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)