# Talk:Puffadder shyshark

This article contradicts the article on the natal shyshark.  The article on the natal shyshark makes it clear that the natal shyshark is a distinct species.  The natal shyshark article is (as of now) more recently updated, so I think it's probably more accurate. This article leaves the issue undetermined.  If anyone knows for sure, can you please update this article accordingly?--Beezer137 19:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, Beezer137.  Now fixed. GrahamBould 19:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources 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.
For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter,  here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you.  --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Puffadder shyshark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Excellent work as usual. I made a few minor edits, such as adding a few links, tweaking the prose in one spot, and adding issue #'s that were missing for a couple of sources. Other than that, there isn't really anything for me to add. I like reviewing your shark articles, they are very easy to promote! Sasata (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Prose is clear and concise; article complies with MOS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR): 
Sources are reliable; article is well-cited.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Coverage comparable to other GA-quality shark articles. Search of ISI Web of Knowledge academic database shows that all relevant research papers were used.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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):
All images have appropriate free use licenses.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)