Jump to content

Talk:Smalltooth sand tiger/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Well written in a clear and precise style b (MoS): Follows MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): It is well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers the major areas b (focused): Remains focused on subject of article
  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:
  • Another wonderful article by this editor. Clearly a GA. Congratulations!

Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]