Talk:Puffadder shyshark/GA1

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

Excellent work as usual. I made a few minor edits, such as adding a few links, tweaking the prose in one spot, and adding issue #'s that were missing for a couple of sources. Other than that, there isn't really anything for me to add. I like reviewing your shark articles, they are very easy to promote! Sasata (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is clear and concise; article complies with MOS.

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
 * Sources are reliable; article is well-cited.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Coverage comparable to other GA-quality shark articles. Search of ISI Web of Knowledge academic database shows that all relevant research papers were used.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * All images have appropriate free use licenses.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: