Talk:Nervous shark

Copyright problem removed

This article was based on the corresponding article at fishbase.org or niwascience.co.naz, neither of which are compatibly licensed for Wikipedia. It has been revised on this date as part of a large-scale project to remove infringement from these sources. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion and the cleanup task force subpage.) Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nervous shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lhynard (talk · contribs) 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Status:

~ I will likely begin reviewing this article tonight or tomorrow morning. ~ Lhynard (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Article has passed "quick-fail criteria". Beginning detailed assessment. ~ Lhynard (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done History examined

 Done Checked for disambig links

 Done Checked for dead external links ~ Lhynard (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Checked criterion 1 ~ Lhynard (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Checked criterion 2

 Done Checked criterion 3

 Done Checked criterion 4

 Done Checked criterion 5

 Done Checking criterion 6

Pass Checking criterion 7: Article passes ~ Lhynard (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC) (Please note that I have to run and will return to complete the approval process on all the required pages.)

---

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	• Very well written. Good job. Correct grammar and punctuation, excepting a few commas here and there, which I have fixed for you.  • Excellent taxonomy section!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	• The description in the lead is, in my opinion, slightly too detailed. I would suggest simplifying the last two sentences of the 1st paragraph to something like: "Many of its fins are black-tipped," and leave it at that, since the Description section will go into more detail.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	• It is regretable that there is no image of the shark itself, but that is no fault to any of the editors nor a requirement for GA.  • I do not think that the image of the snake is very relevant and suggest removing it. It's not even the case that the snake is the primary food source. (It would be like putting a cheeseburger on the page for Homo sapiens. :) )
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent work; I only wish there were an image of the shark....

---

Extra Comments:

Please do not edit this article while a  Doing... icon appears above. Please feel free to edit this article at any other time the review is in progress. If anyone wishes to respond to my review or add a review of their own, please do so below.

Responses: Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)