Talk:Copper shark/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

Congrats. It's a GA PASS. A very nice read indeed, well on the path of FA. I suggest a peer review by "expert" editors, who edit in this domain before a FAC. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)