Talk:Reticulate whipray/GA1

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa   (talk)  12:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Will commence read through and post any comments as I come across issues. If neccessary I might make alterations to prose as I proceed - if I accidently change the meaning then please feel free to reverse those changes. Miyagawa  (talk)  12:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Had to look up "fishes" because I was sure the correct plural was simply fish - but you were right, it's fishes when talking about multiple different species. Miyagawa  (talk)  12:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * 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:

Can't see any issues with the article that would prevent it from being graded a GA. I can tell you've done a few of these. :) Miyagawa   (talk)  16:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)