Talk:Horn shark/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have made a few copy editing changes which you are free to revert where I have changed the meaning. This is a wonderfully informative article.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows required MoS elements

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

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

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

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: Pass

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)