Talk:Whitetip reef shark/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Should be done in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments Another well-written shark article. I wish I could offer more suggestions to improve it, but it looks like you've covered the bases thoroughly. A couple of minor points:

• Fix dab to respiration
• The big word parturition might benefit from wikilinking (although the resulting article is annoyingly human-centric) or wiktionary-linking

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is well-written; article complies with MOS.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Well-referenced to reliable sources. I source-checked some online refs and all was good.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage is comparable to other GA shark articles.

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: