Talk:Puffadder shyshark/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]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)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- Prose is clear and concise; article complies with MOS.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c(OR):
- Sources are reliable; article is well-cited.
- a (references):
- 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.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)