Talk:Blacknose shark/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

GA review (see here for criteria)

A very nice article. (I am learning about sharks!)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): The prose is clear. One suggestion would be to use alternative words for "incurrent" and "excurrent", as I am not sure if most readers would understand these terms. Also, a definition of "light tackle" would be appreciated.  b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The references are to reliable sources.  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Covers the major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.: Stable
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)