Talk:Sharptooth houndshark/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll review this shark. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a few notes: I enlarged the image of the shark slightly in order to see details better, but feel free to change back. Also (minor), the statement "Harmless to humans" does seem to be mentioned in ref 14 - however nothing in the article indicates otherwise and I may have missed the info in the ref.
 * Did you mean "does not seem to be mentioned"? If so, the info is in the "threat to humans" box near the bottom by the IUCN status.


 * I thought I read in one of the references that not that much is known about this shark, but I can't find it now. (Did I hallucinate?)
 * That has been said, but it's such a relative thing and given the difficulty of doing the research there's probably only a dozen shark species total that I've seen described as "well-known".


 * This is well written, nicely illustrated and clearly structured. Very informative about this shark.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very well done!
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very well done!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very well done!
 * Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)