# Talk:Smooth hammerhead

This review is transcluded from Talk:Smooth hammerhead/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I made a few copy edits in reading the article. Feel free to revert any errors. Another interesting article by this editor.  —Mattisse (Talk) 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Clearly written  b (MoS): Complies with relevant MoS 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers the broad aspects  b (focused): Remains focused on topic 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral 

It is 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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass 

Congratulations!
—Mattisse (Talk) 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I don't have access to the article since I'm writing here. 92.95.216.254 (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)