Talk:Hardnose shark/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Yzx in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 05:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'll start the review later, got to get some gardening done before the rain starts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

First pass Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • Looking at the map, there are at least six BE English-speaking countries in this shark's range, and none that are AE English-speaking. AE seems an inappropriate variety of English.
I ran the text through an online AE-BE convertor. I'm not that familiar with BE so let me know if I missed something.
  • You don't need the species' name in the range map, it's assumed to be for the subject of the article
True, I just like the longer caption because I think less white space looks better in the infobox.
  • modest-sized—not sure this works, "medium-sized" or "modest" ?
Changed to "modestly sized"
  • perhaps a couple of words qualifying Theodore Gill, as you have done with the Germans
Added
  • macloti I understand, but why Maclot's shark when he's named Macklot?
I don't know why. Maybe people forgot the etymology and just went by the binomial.
  • In the description, I'd be inclined to start with the general appearance rather than the, admittedly peculiar, snout.
Rearranged
  • originates roughly over the pectoral fin free rear tips.—not sure I understand this, why "free"
This is a specific technical term for sharks. I've added a link for it.
  • less than 50 km (31 mi) —"31" seems over-precise for a "less than"
Adjusted the sig figs for the conversion
  • Bony fishes form the main part of its diet—"its" separated from its subject by an intervening sentence
Changed to "this shark's diet"
  • Known parasites—as opposed to unknown?
"Known" removed
  • Ref 1 needs italicised binomial
Fixed

I'll have another read after I see your comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Everything above looks OK, I'll probably leave it until tomorrow to have a second read. If I don't find anything significant, I'll do the GA then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply