Talk:Caribbean reef shark/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It appears to be an adequate article on the subject. I have just a few comments.

Comments

• There is overlinking in the article. (See WP:MoS#Overlinking.) Common words such as fish, jaws (which needs disambiguation anyway), shrimps, crabs, tooth and other words that a reader of English can be expected to know do not wikilinking unless the linked article adds information that enlarges the meaning of the article. If an article is wikilinked, like fisheries, diver etc., only wikilink it at the first mention.

• Removed a couple

• At one point the article says the species is "abundant", but at another place it is listed as a near threatened species. This seems contradictory.

• "Locally abundant" is the phrase used by the IUCN assessment; I've qualified it as such

• The number of 22 attacks does not have a date. Needs an "as of".

• Done (and updated)

• When a book is referenced, a page number should be given in the footnote.

• Done

Otherwise, the article is clearly written, and nicely formatted. The pictures are wonderful. A good job!

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed your points. -- Yzx (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Great. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

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): Yes b (focused): Yese

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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:

Nice, clearly presented article. Congratulations

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)