Talk:Blacknose shark/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review (see here for criteria)

1. 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

2. 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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers the major 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.: 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:

A very nice article. (I am learning about sharks!)

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)