Talk:Creek whaler

Sharks Low‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Creek whaler is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Creek whaler 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 10, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Copyright problem[edit]

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. --– Sadalmelik ☎ 07:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are again - I'll jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think I'd delink family in the lead as it is a sea of bluelinks....~~

I've delinked "Carcharhinidae".

That's fine - just needed to de-blue it a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally italicise "Least Concern" as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic_face - see emphasis - word-as-word.

I'm reticent to do this, as it's not italicized on the IUCN page (or in the IUCN status template). In any case, I think the capitalization adds enough emphasis.

Okay - not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else is jumping out at me. I went through and found surprisingly little to tweak, so I guess that's a pass...

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

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

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Looks good Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]