Talk:Horn shark/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have made a few copy editing changes which you are free to revert where I have changed the meaning. This is a wonderfully informative article.

GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows required MoS elements
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Cover the major areas b (focused): Remains focused on the topic
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: Neutral
 * 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: Pass
 * 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: Pass
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Pass

Congratulations!

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)