Talk:Smoothtooth blacktip shark/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 04:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot) c (Alt text)

• no dabs found by the tools;
• ext links work;
• images lack alt text. It is not a GA requirement, but you may consider adding it in (it doesn't affect the review).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• No major issues, the prose seems relatively easy to understand to a lay person and the meaning seems clear.
• No major MOS issues that I can see.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• all paragraphs/sentences are cited;
• sources appear to be reliable within the definition of WP:RS and indeed seem definitive, although I am a lay person on this subject;
• I don't believe that there has been any original research.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• given that very little is known about the species, I believe that this article incorporates all major aspects of thhe topic without losing focus;

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• there has been a bit of recent editing activity, but nothing amounting to an edit war.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• No issues.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• I believe this article meets the GA criteria and as such I have passed this review. Good work to all those who have contributed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)