Talk:Blacktip shark/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this article for GA. I made some copy edits which you are free to correct. Another interesting article. Well done! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly and concisely written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Statements are well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers the broad areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Congratulations! I enjoy reading your articles.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)