Talk:Borneo shark/GA1

GA Review
''This review is transcluded from Talk:Borneo shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bastian (talk · contribs) 19:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am beginning a review for this article. Bastian (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Well-written, minimal grammatical error, good punctuation and spelling.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * The entire introduction to the article is devoid of any citation/references; body of article contains citations where necessary, as few as they are.
 * Because the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, it does not require citations except for particularly controversial statements. From Citing sources: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." -- Yzx (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was being picky. I'm passing it. Bastian (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, it does not require citations except for particularly controversial statements. From Citing sources: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." -- Yzx (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was being picky. I'm passing it. Bastian (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * C. No original research:
 * No original research was observed in article.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The article covers most major aspects
 * B. Focused:
 * The article is well focused on the subject matter and focuses well on each different heading/section.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No obvious bias was observed in article.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Article is completely free of edit wars.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * There is only one copyright tagged image of a body of water in Bako National Park in Sarawak, eastern Malaysia, on the island of Borneo (illustrating its "distribution/habitat". There is no photo, drawing, or any other type of image of the Borneo shark. So although there is one image, I am not going to pass this part. At least one image of the shark is needed.
 * GA requirements ask for illustrations if possible. For rare, little-known species such as this, freely-licensed images are often impossible or impractical to obtain. From Reviewing good articles: "The article should comply with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. Any images used should be appropriate to the article, have captions and free licenses or valid fair use rationales." -- Yzx (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that a GA status article must contain at least one picture of the subject matter. Guess I was wrong. Bastian (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Yes, an image with a caption was placed in the appropriate part of the article, but again, another image or two are needed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Great work!