Talk:Tasmanian numbfish

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel Cavallari (talk · contribs) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks very promising.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I am not a native speaker, but the article reads very well. I did not detect any obvious spelling and/or grammar errors.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Everything OK.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Everything is properly referenced. References are mostly books, scientific papers and reliable online databases (IUCN red list). Some are verifiable online.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Everything OK here.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK as well.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Most literature on the species is covered, except for a few papers on neuroanatomy, biochemistry and physiology, which I don't think are necessary at this point.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is focused and very concise.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There are only two editors currently working on it, the reviewer and the proponent, so I assume it is pretty much stable.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All are appropriately tagged.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Ok.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent job! GA pass.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

The article is overall very concise and straight to the point, which is good in my opinion. A few tweaks are necessary, however. I will strike each comment as soon as adjustments are made, or satisfying explanations are given.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

:* The picture in the taxobox needs a caption.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's little point to doing so, since there's nothing particular to say about it. There's no sexual dimorphism that would warrant clarification of the depicted individual, no geographic variation, etc. The caption would just be a repeat of the taxobox title.

I understand your point of view. I'm a biologist myself and a collections manager, and it seems obvious to me that this is a museum/research collection specimen, fixated and preserved in wet media (most probably ethanol), just by looking at it. As is the case in most museum specimens, it probably has lost some of its original coloration. The average reader, however, might wonder "what is that specimen? Where did it come from? Is it a live specimen, cropped from a photograph taken in the ocean, or is it dead? Is it an adult? How big is it?" and so on. More information would avoid misinterpretation, and would make the article more encyclopedic. Something like: "A fixated specimen from CSIRO national fish colleciton". I must insist on this point. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added a caption noting it's a preserved specimen. I don't think noting which collection it comes from is important, the same way we don't attribute photographers in other images. -- Yzx (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks very good. I think this is it! Congratulations. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• The geographic range map caption could be a little more informative. I assume the range is represented by the shaded (blue colored) area, but it wouldn't hurt to inform the reader.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Added "in blue" to the caption

Okay.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• I miss some literature on phylogeny. A google scholar search revealed this book, which discusses elasmobranch phylogeny based on mitochondrial data. N. tasmaniensis is mentioned on pages 45, 48 and 557. Regardless of the validity of the study, I believe it is worth mentioning.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Added a note about it

Looks great!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Similarly, I miss a few other studies on neuroanatomy, biochemistry and physiology, basically this, this, this and this. I don't think they're vital to the article at this point. They may be useful during a future FA review. They're not open access papers, and maybe too much info for GA. If you're able to include them, then all the better.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

These are studies using this species as a model to look at general physiological function. I believe they're too esoteric for a species-focused zoology article.

I agree, but consider reviewing this in a future FAC attempt :).--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

:* There is some info on exploitation (and bathymetric range, if I'm not mistaken) here, but this is also a suggestion (and maybe redundant as well).--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The information in this source is already in the article.

Ok!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)