 | Blacknose shark has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright problem removed edit
This article was based on the corresponding article at fishbase.org or niwascience.co.naz, neither of which are compatibly licensed for Wikipedia. It has been revised on this date as part of a large-scale project to remove infringement from these sources. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion and the cleanup task force subpage.) Thank you. --– Sadalmelik ☎ 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
GA Review edit
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Blacknose shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): The prose is clear. One suggestion would be to use alternative words for "incurrent" and "excurrent", as I am not sure if most readers would understand these terms. Also, a definition of "light tackle" would be appreciated.
b (MoS): Follows MoS
- a (prose): The prose is clear. One suggestion would be to use alternative words for "incurrent" and "excurrent", as I am not sure if most readers would understand these terms. Also, a definition of "light tackle" would be appreciated.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The references are to reliable sources. c (OR): No OR
- a (references): Well referenced
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Covers the major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic
- a (major aspects): Covers the major areas
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
A very nice article. (I am learning about sharks!)