Talk:Pondicherry shark

Copyright problem removed

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. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pondicherry shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose to review this article and will be studying it in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A few prose points

• "This species is gray above and white below, which extends onto the flanks as an obvious pale stripe." - This sentence needs clarification.

Rephrased to "This species is gray above and white below, with an obvious pale stripe on the flanks." -- Yzx (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Innocuous towards humans, the Pondicherry shark was caught and used for meat." - I don't much care for the use of the word "innocuous" here.

Changed to "harmless to humans". -- Yzx (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, little I can find to criticize. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Criteria

• 1a The article is well written
• 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines as to layout, lead etc.
• 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements.
• 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
• 3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
• 4 The article is neutral
• 5 The article has been expanded by the nominator in the last week and has hardly been edited by anybody else recently.
• 6 The images are either in the public domain or are appropriately licensed.
• 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
• Overall assessment - Pass. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)