Talk:Nervous shark/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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)