Talk:Smalltail 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) 08:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 08:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

First of all can I say that I have never heard of the Smalltail shark, so its interesting to read for that fact alone.

• No disamb links no action required
• External links checked no action required
• In the lead 2–9 young should be two to nine
  • Done.
• Same in the Biology and ecology section litters of 2–9 (typically 4–6) young
  • Done.
• The ISBN for Castro, J.H. (2011). The Sharks of North America needs fixing
  • Done.

Well done some small points to fix or discuss. I have put a seven day hold on the review to enable users to address any points. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)