Talk:Smalltooth sand tiger/GA1

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

GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written in a clear and precise style b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): It is well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Covers the major areas b (focused): Remains focused on subject of article
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 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:
 * Another wonderful article by this editor. Clearly a GA. Congratulations!
 * 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:
 * Another wonderful article by this editor. Clearly a GA. Congratulations!
 * Another wonderful article by this editor. Clearly a GA. Congratulations!
 * Another wonderful article by this editor. Clearly a GA. Congratulations!

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)