Talk:Blacktip shark/GA1

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

I am reviewing this article for GA. I made some copy edits which you are free to correct. Another interesting article. Well done! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Clearly and concisely written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Statements are well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Covers the broad 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.:
 * 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:
 * Congratulations! I enjoy reading your articles.
 * 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:
 * Congratulations! I enjoy reading your articles.
 * Congratulations! I enjoy reading your articles.
 * Congratulations! I enjoy reading your articles.

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)