Talk:Puffadder shyshark/GA1

GA Review

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

Excellent work as usual. I made a few minor edits, such as adding a few links, tweaking the prose in one spot, and adding issue #'s that were missing for a couple of sources. Other than that, there isn't really anything for me to add. I like reviewing your shark articles, they are very easy to promote! Sasata (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is clear and concise; article complies with MOS.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Sources are reliable; article is well-cited.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage comparable to other GA-quality shark articles. Search of ISI Web of Knowledge academic database shows that all relevant research papers were used.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

   All images have appropriate free use licenses.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)