Viper dogfish 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. Review: June 22, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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) 04:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 10:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Before we start, a bit of advice: If there's a message on your GA candidae's talk page saying there's a copyright violation, it's a good idea to note that the problem is no longer relevant. (And, as the message is four years old in this case, it might be worth archiving it - though given this talk page isn't used much, I can see why you wouldn't do that.)
However, I did a quick comparison of the revisios from the copyright violation page and the current, and there are happily no issues, so, initial worries aside, this review can carry on to a rather more pleasant conclusion.
Now, I do have some issues with this article. I don't think they're quite enough to deny it good article status, but I would strongly encourage fixing these.
It would be nice to have a picture, but for rare sea animals only discovered in the late 80s, that's far less of a problem than it would be in an article on a readily-accessible species.
So, on the whole, pass, but with caveats. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)