Talk:False catshark/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Andrew Gray (talk · contribs) 16:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Thoroughly cited and no apparent OR. Sources all look trustworthy.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Contains all the key topics. All content is relevant to the topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No obvious signs of POV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   All looks good since the major expansion.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images and captions all look good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Some specific comments:

• Pseudotriakis is false-Triakis; but catsharks are Scyliorhinidae. So how did this become known as the false catshark rather than, say, the false houndshark?

At the time, Triakis was classified in the catshark family. I've added a sentence about this. -- Yzx (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Would it be worth including commons:File:Pseudotriakis acrales by jordan and snyder.jpg somewhere? A line drawing is often easier to understand than a photograph, especially for something as drab-coloured as this species.

Image added. -- Yzx (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• FishBase and the IUCN both appear in the references section. Do they need to be duplicated in external links as well

Is this policy? I didn't think the external links section had anything to do with references. -- Yzx (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what policy is, to be honest; it just feels a bit strange to me :-). I'll leave it up to whatever your normal practice is. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Two more:

• "The dermal denticles are shaped like arrowheads with a central ridge, and are sparsely on the skin." - not quite sure what this is trying to say. They're sparsely distributed?

Yes that's what I meant. The word was missing. -- Yzx (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In Okinawa, its oil is traditionally used to seal the hulls of wooden fishing boats." - the article generally implies that this shark isn't caught very frequently, and that it's only caught by accident. If there's a specific traditional use, does this imply it's more commonly caught in Okinawa?

The source doesn't go into any more detail on that, so I can't say. -- Yzx (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think that's about it! I've made some small changes to prose to (IMO) make it read a bit smoother, but feel free to change them back if you object. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

All looks good to me. Passing. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)