# Talk:Sharptooth houndshark

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) 06:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sharptooth houndshark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this shark.  MathewTownsend (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a few notes: I enlarged the image of the shark slightly in order to see details better, but feel free to change back. Also (minor), the statement "Harmless to humans" does seem to be mentioned in ref 14 - however nothing in the article indicates otherwise and I may have missed the info in the ref.
Did you mean "does not seem to be mentioned"? If so, the info is in the "threat to humans" box near the bottom by the IUCN status.
I thought I read in one of the references that not that much is known about this shark, but I can't find it now. (Did I hallucinate?)
That has been said, but it's such a relative thing and given the difficulty of doing the research there's probably only a dozen shark species total that I've seen described as "well-known".
This is  well written, nicely illustrated and clearly structured. Very informative about this shark.
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Very well done!

Congratulations!  MathewTownsend (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)