Just few initial comments before review:
- as you are upstream, it will be perfect to add version to the tarball name - you will prevent shaxxx/md5sum mismatches in the future updates.
- please consider some manpage for the script (maybe just a bit tweaked README file)
- Although BuildRoot is no longer really used, BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/dfish-root is not allowed, please fix it to something like %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
- %doc README CHANGELOG COPYING should be sufficient 
- you don't need 
  mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/%{name}
  install -m 644 README COPYING CHANGELOG $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/%{name}
  in install section
- once you add version to the tarball name (and do a tarball with versioned directory), you will need just setup -q in prep section

Please fix those issues. TIA.

OK, changes applied
 - BuildRoot changed
 - %doc instead of cp-ing the docs
 - man page added
 - new upstream version with version in tarball and directory name

SPEC: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dnovotny/f/dfish.spec
SRPM: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dnovotny/f/dfish-1.3-1.fc11.src.rpm

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review
[Reset@localhost devel]$ md5sum dfish.spec 
68d7309025d9642b1afa0009c8daf337  dfish.spec
[Reset@localhost devel]$ md5sum dfish-1.3-1.fc11.src.rpm 
92333c6923cc1191b5d8a06eba4a8d74  dfish-1.3-1.fc11.src.rpm
md5sum dfish-1.3.tar.gz 
54724d7da7b4beb3b98652508326f18f  dfish-1.3.tar.gz

rpmlint -v dfish.spec dfish-1.3-1.fc11.src.rpm dfish-1.3-1.fc12.noarch.rpm 
dfish.src: I: checking
dfish.noarch: I: checking
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

+ MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
+ MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license
+ MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
+ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task

from srpm:
md5sum dfish-1.3.tar.gz 
54724d7da7b4beb3b98652508326f18f  dfish-1.3.tar.gz
from upstream:
md5sum dfish-1.3.tar.gz 
54724d7da7b4beb3b98652508326f18f  dfish-1.3.tar.gz
= MATCHES
+ MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture
 - noarch, built without troubles
0 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro
0 MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
0 MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
+ MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker
+ MUST: Package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory
+ MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line.
+ MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content
0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
+ MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
0 MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
0 MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built
0 MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
+ MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
+ MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
+ MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

Everything seems to be sane, review+. Feel free to request CVS branch.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: dfish
Short Description: A generic file selection front-end
Owners: dnovotny
Branches: F-12
InitialCC:

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

thanks Kevin,
built in rawhide (dfish-1.3-1.fc13) and F12

dfish-1.3-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dfish-1.3-1.fc12

dfish-1.3-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.