Talk:Whitetip reef shark/GA1

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

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Should be done in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments Another well-written shark article. I wish I could offer more suggestions to improve it, but it looks like you've covered the bases thoroughly. A couple of minor points:
 * Fix dab to respiration
 * The big word parturition might benefit from wikilinking (although the resulting article is annoyingly human-centric) or wiktionary-linking


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


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


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
 * Well-referenced to reliable sources. I source-checked some online refs and all was good.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Coverage is comparable to other GA shark articles.
 * 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: