Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Silky shark/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [1].

Silky shark edit

Silky shark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Yzx (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It passed GA last October and I've improved it some more since. Yzx (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 20:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Iridia (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Quite a nice read.
  • There seems an excessive amount of overlinking to place and country names, particularly in Distribution and habitat, which appears almost solid blue with links, making it quite hard to read.
My policy in writing articles is to the link the first instance of every geographical location, so that if the reader doesn't know where it is they can look it up. I find this preferable to linking only the locations that I think are obscure, as that can introduce biases based on my personal knowledge. What would you suggest be delinked?
Perhaps unlink country names and leave the state names and the oceanographic locations (Gulf of Aden, etc) linked. That should be sufficient. Iridia (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree, since I wouldn't necessarily expect an average reader to know where, say, Angola or the Maldives are (or maybe I'm being cynical). -- Yzx (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a MoS guideline for this, but it's never possible to find these things when they're needed... Iridia (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, this has been improved. Iridia (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found the linking of hearing to be unnecessary in a sentence that says "Its sense of hearing is extremely acute".
Unlinked
  • Some of the images do not relate to the text they are with: those in Distribution and habitat and in Feeding.
Appropriately licensed pictures of sharks are very hard to come by, and these were the ones I found. I tried to make the captions as germane as I could. I can replace the image in Feeding with that of a food fish; would that be better?
Yes, that would be good; particularly if the image has some sense of scale, so that the size of the food fish relative to the size of the shark stated elsewhere can be inferred. Iridia (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with a tuna image; I see your point about scale but I prefer to use images of living animals in their natural habitats (or as close as can be found) whenever possible. The relative sizes of the prey and shark vary with the size of both anyway, so I don't know how informative that would be. -- Yzx (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image looks good. Iridia (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any better image available for the juvenile shark picture? Maybe of the significant live birth?
As far as I know birth has never been photographed, and if it has it would almost certainly be proprietary.
  • Distribution and habitat: in "Its range extends farther north and south along continental margins than in oceanic waters", it does not seem helpful to link "continental" to Continent; preferably link "continental margin" - except then that's linked in the preceding sentence. Perhaps rephrase to "these continental margins" and leave unlinked.
Unlinked "continent"; "continental margin" is pretty self-explanatory anyway
  • Biology and ecology, para 1: "watery desert" seems like a statement that should have greater support, either through citations or linking.
Removed it; two words aren't worth another ref
  • In Human interactions: while the first instance of bycatch is linked as "caught incidentally", it might be better to put "bycatch" in parentheses after, as the term is used unlinked later on.
Linked both "caught incidentally" and "bycatch", since I don't want to put a word in parentheses that also appears regularly in the next sentence
  • also there: link "blue shark", as the last mention of it was three sections earlier.
Done
  • In Conservation, are there any concrete numbers on how the population has benefited from the bans on finning? That seems quite a sweeping statement to leave hanging, given the careful statistics above on its decline.
No statistics are available, but it's mentioned on every IUCN page on pelagic sharks. I added the qualifier "likely" in there to make it sound more vague
Then it should be "the IUCN suggests the population has benefited", if they're the assessors. Iridia (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this is implied by the attached ref, as since the IUCN is the source for almost all the conservation data I don't like making an explicit reference to this one particular statement as though it's qualitatively different from the rest of the section. -- Yzx (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ref states "The adoption of shark finning bans by fishing states (e.g., USA, Australia), regional entities (EU) and regional fisheries organisations (e.g. ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC, WCPFC) is accelerating and should increasingly prevent the capture of oceanic sharks for their fins alone. " That's quite a different implication from "likely benefited": there is no data to show it has yet happened. I suggest rewording the sentence. Iridia (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased to "It should benefit from bans on shark finning, which are being increasingly implemented by nations and supranational entities, including the United States, Australia, and the European Union." -- Yzx (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • also there: link "requiem shark", as that was only mentioned in the lead. Iridia (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Support. Article is now well-referenced and reads well. Iridia (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and the review. -- Yzx (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Support Comments: This is my first stab at assisting with one of these reviews. With that said, I want to say that this is a very nice article. There are a few small points, though.

  • I'm used to WP:MAMMAL, and specifically WP:PRIMATE. Does this WikiProject prefer lowercase names when mentioning species? I'm used to uppercase.
The policy for fish articles is to use sentence case, yes. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, the last half of a sentence reads, "...this species has behaved aggressively towards divers and should be treated with caution." To me, this goes against WP:NOTHOWTO. I suggest finding a way to reword this such that you are not telling people how to act around the shark.>
Removed it. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your range map is very good. Personally, I prefer to have the descriptive text reference the source for the map, so just add a citation. I know it's cited on the image description on Commons, but I just feel this is good practice.
Ref added. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it conventional to put a portal link under the taxobox? I honestly don't know, so someone please tell me.
That's where it is on all shark articles, and it's been that way since before I started here so I don't know who decided it. I don't think it looks bad there. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I ask because I might want to eventually link the Primates portal to my lemur articles. Good to know... – VisionHolder « talk » 02:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the etymology of the scientific name, you translate the species name, but not the genus (which is Greek and means "jagged nose" according to "Dictionary of word roots and combining forms", ISBN: 978-0874840537). Personally, I like for the full name to be translated, but that's just me.
My preference is to save the translation of the genus name for the genus article, as I like keeping species articles as tightly focused as possible. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can respect that. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oligocene epoch (34-23 Ma)" and "Eocene (56-34 Ma) epoch" – pick a place to put the parentheses and stick with it. (I prefer after "epoch", or omitting "epoch" all-together.)
Fixed. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The silky shark apparently reproduces year-round in most of its range, whereas in the Gulf of Mexico mating and parturition take place in late spring or early summer (May to August)." I don't like the way this one is worded. Maybe something like: "Most silky sharks are known (or thought?) to reproduce year-round, whereas mating and parturition in the Gulf of Mexico take place in late spring or early summer (May to August)."
Rephrased to "Silky sharks in most parts of the world are thought to reproduce year-round, whereas mating and parturition in the Gulf of Mexico take place in late spring or early summer (May to August)." -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some sport fishers value silky sharks.[5]" This sentence seems out of place in its current paragraph. I suggest moving it into the next paragraph.
Moved. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All numbers should have a non-breaking space ("&nbsp;") between them and the following word to help with readability when a line ends (depending on the window size of the browser).
Added. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you've thoroughly searched the academic literature for studies on this species and represented the available material, you should be good once these issues are addressed. I also recommend contacting any one of the authors you cited for an expert review, if you can manage it. Otherwise, well done! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. -- Yzx (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes! I've added my tentative support, pending the support of more experienced reviewers. I also hope someone can check the references and the available literature since I only have access to Google Scholar. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. -- Yzx (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks very good! All suggestions I can offer are minor: Sasata (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • lead: suggest linking life history, conservation status
Done.
  • link to the protologue? (available here)
Ref added.
Links added.
  • "This species may also be referred to…" I've been told that self-referencing was to be avoided, so maybe swap "This" with "The". There's further instances of "this species" in the article too.
I personally think "the species" sounds wrong, since I don't read "the" and think "this". I don't really see a problem with using "this species", and I see this type of referencing in books all the time. I have changed some of the instances in the article for variety.
Fair enough.
  • Are there links for "Old Church formation" and "Ashley formation"?
Probably non-notable, though I'm not familiar with what the geologists here do.
  • "…based on allozyme data…" could this be clarified? I'm assuming this is sequence data (but maybe not, perhaps electrophoretic mobility?)
Added "sequence"
  • link cosmopolitan distribution, tagging
Done for the first; electronic tag is actually about surveillance, not the tags used on fish. There ought to be an article on it, but I don't know what it should be called; fish tag? research tag?
Ah, the dab page was misleading ("recording data on saltwater marine species") and I didn't actually check the destination page. I'm not sure what to call that device, you're the fish guy! Sasata (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The circular, medium-sized eyes and equipped with nictitating membranes (protective third eyelids)." Either missing something or need to swap "and" with "are"
Fixed (should've been "are").
  • "Their vulnerability to predation compels young sharks to grow quickly within the nursery" "compels" seems to me like the wrong verb to use; would they all of a sudden grow more slowly if there weren't predators?
Changed to "The risk of predation has selected for fast growth in young sharks..."
  • I'll have a look at references and do a lit review tonight
Thanks for commenting. -- Yzx (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b/c review:
  • there's quite a few scientific papers in the academic literature about this species, and many are cited in this article. There's a few more that caught my eye; do you think any of these article might have relevant and interesting information? Sasata (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ecological risk assessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries
Author(s): Cortes, E; Arocha, F; Beerkircher, L, et al.
Source: AQUATIC LIVING RESOURCES Volume: 23 Issue: 1 Pages: 25-34 Published: 2010
  • The silky shark is highly vulnerable to pelagic longline fisheries
I think the article already covers longline mortality sufficiently. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Determining shark size from forensic analysis of bite damage
Author(s): Lowry, Dayv; Fagundes de Castro, Andrey Leonardo; Mara, Kyle, et al.
Source: Marine Biology (Berlin) Volume: 156 Issue: 12 Pages: 2483-2492 Published: NOV 2009
  • forensic analysis can differentiate shark size and species based on bite damage
I think this would be better under shark attack than on a species article. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Trade-Offs in the Design of Fishery Closures: Management of Silky Shark Bycatch in the Eastern Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishery
Author(s): Watson, JT; Essington, TE; Lennert-Cody, CE, et al.
Source: CONSERVATION BIOLOGY Volume: 23 Issue: 3 Pages: 626-635 Published: 2009
This article is mostly about how to determine where and when to stop fishing to reduce bycatch, which
Added some bits; the modeling is probably beyond the purview of the article. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Two Shark-bitten Whale Skeletons from Coastal Plain Deposits of South Carolina
Author(s): Cicimurri, DJ; Knight, JL
Source: SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST Volume: 8 Issue: 1 Pages: 71-82 Published: 2009
  • "…compelling fossil/sub-fossil evidence, in the form of bite marks and shed/embedded teeth, that the elasmobranchs … Carcharhinus falciformis… fed on cetacean carcasses"
Material added. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Fetal mummification in silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) from the Gulf of California, Mexico
Author(s): Sandoval-Castillo, J; Villavicencio-Garayzar, C
Source: BRAZILIAN ARCHIVES OF BIOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY Volume: 51 Issue: 3 Pages: 551-554 Published: 2008
A rather odd and anomalous phenomenon that also affects mammals, and I think would be better placed on a fetal mummification article. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: The Silky Shark, Carcharhinus falciformis (BIBRON, 1841), in the Pliocene of Cava Serredi (Fine Basin, Italy)
Author(s): Carnevale, G; Marsili, S; Caputo, D, et al.
Source: NEUES JAHRBUCH FUR GEOLOGIE UND PALAONTOLOGIE-ABHANDLUNGEN Volume: 242 Issue: 2-3 Pages: 357-370 Published: DEC 2006
Note added. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Is the collapse of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico real?
Author(s): Burgess, GH; Beerkircher, LR; Cailliet, GM, et al.
Source: FISHERIES Volume: 30 Issue: 10 Pages: 19-26 Published: OCT 2005
Added a note about the dispute, and refs for the dispute, the rebuttal, and the counter-rebuttal. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: A Monte Carlo demographic analysis of the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis): implications of gear selectivity
Author(s): Beerkircher, L; Shivji, M; Cortes, E
Source: FISHERY BULLETIN Volume: 101 Issue: 1 Pages: 168-174 Published: 2003
I think this is a bit too specific and technical for the article, not to mention the model came with a whole bunch of caveats reflecting limits in current knowledge. -- Yzx (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like the new additions, and think this is a fine article, meeting all the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and the review. -- Yzx (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: images need some sorting out Images okay.

  • File:Silky shark red sea.jpg: copyviolation—uploader to picasa "washed" (released under a license without authority) someone's else's work. The image was uploaded to the web and spread around before April 2007 (where it appeared as a wallpaper here; web archive shows this site was up in 2007). This wallpaper collection (2007) is the probable original source for the 1600x1200 copy. A 2000x1333 copy is even uploaded to picasaweb a month earlier here. Google Images show more of such high resolution images. In short, the picasa uploader is not authorised to released the photo as his own.
    Swapped it out for another one (ignore the file name, I've been trying to get it changed). Would you check that as well? -- Yzx (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Carcharhinus perezi.jpg: Andrejs Jegorovs has uploaded other images under different names (Alvils Zilemanis, Stas Shmuks, Alex Chernikh).[2] According to him, this photo was Chernikh's work. Seeing how Jegorovs was the co-subject in File:Carcharhinus perezi and diver.jpg, a photo he said was taken by Zilemanis, it seems probable that they were part of a dive (assuming good faith). Still, it is not known if his friends just passed him copies of their work for his enjoyment, or for upload to Commons for anyone to use for any purposes... An OTRS would have been better, but it seems Jegorovs stopped contributing after uploading his photos. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Might I recommend the four photos at http://www.whatsthatfish.com/fish/silky-shark/931? As stated at the bottom, "All user-contributed content is dedicated to the public domain". Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hopefully the image by Andrejs Jegorovs is legitimately licensed, since it's by far the best image of this species currently available. Thanks for that site recommendation though; it's got some great stuff. -- Yzx (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status here? Please have Jappalang update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Yzx is trying to contact Andrejs to ask his friends to send an OTRS? Until then, the copyright status of Chernikh's photo is dodgy (and not something we should try to promote on an FA). Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a request on Andrejs' talk page, but considering he has not contributed since 2007 I'm not holding my breath on a response. Might I ask though, is there reason to suspect bad faith on his part in uploading the image? I'd hate to see such a great image be omitted because of over-caution. -- Yzx (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No bad faith, just good faith in that he had good intentions in uploading his friend's work, but did not consider the implications of the licensing Commons demand, or had not considered if his friend (Chernikh) was agreed in releasing his work to the public in such a manner. Jappalang (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should I replace the image until (or if) Andrejs responds then? I don't like losing the image, but I don't want the whole FAC to get held up by this one point. -- Yzx (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best to replace it; Chernikh's photo can be put back once an OTRS is received for it. Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, though for the record I disagree with the rationale for its removal. -- Yzx (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replacement image File:Silky shark makunudhoo.jpg is okay. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Yzx (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the first two; the photos are not directly linked from the page though are hosted at the same spot. I swapped out the third as I didn't upload it and had trouble finding the page it was linked two. -- Yzx (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Silky shark esb.jpg: since "You might want to bring binoculars and your camera. If you wish to donate any photos to our collection, we would be glad to accept them. Please email your photos to: jakub.kircun@noaa.gov"[3] and "Some are public domain, some are created by NOAA Fisheries contractors, and some are used by NOAA Fisheries with specific permission granted by the owner. Therefore, graphics found on the NOAA Fisheries web site should not be reused without permission."[4], please contact NOAA to verify the authorship of this photo (might need to use the OTRS).
    Rethinking about this, the photo is either taken by an NOAA crew, or a volunteer surveyor, who I think can be considered a "temporary" government employee during his or her stint aboard the ship. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the decision. I had e-mailed the contact from that page and thus far received no response. -- Yzx (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I have now received a response confirming that the image is public domain. -- Yzx (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help to forward that response to the OTRS; even though I think it is a work of a "government employee" (volunteer), that might not be true (although I am not opposing on this image) and clarification would dispel the doubts of others. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should be resolved to comply with the image policies. Jappalang (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Images are compliant with policies/guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • "under the name Carcharias (Prionodon) falciformis, in their 1839"--Not sure the comma's necessary here.
It's to break up what would otherwise be a long sentence
  • "It can be distinguished from other large requiem sharks by the relatively small first dorsal fin with a curving rear margin, the tiny second dorsal fin with a long free rear tip, and the long, sickle-shaped pectoral fins."--I think this sentence is trying to do a little too much, it's quite cumbersome.
I'm not sure I agree. It's simply a list of three things. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " [...] other feeding animals, and by extension sources of food [...]"--comma needed between "extension" and "sources"
Done. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is significant geographical variation in its life history details."--this sentence (2nd par. lead) seems kind unrelated to the sentences around it.
Life history includes timing of reproduction, litter size, growth, aging, etc. The sentence after it ("Reproduction occurs year-round except in the Gulf of Mexico, where it follows a seasonal cycle") follows this thought by pointing out variation in the timing of reproduction between different regions. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I laughed when I read this: "cutting teeth of the silky shark make it potentially dangerous"--potentially!
Shark sources are careful to include "potentially", because in the vast majority of cases a shark will not attack a human unless provoked. Just putting it as "dangerous", without qualifications, would simply perpetuate the myth of a shark as a "killing machine". -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but the teeth themselves are still very dangerous (maybe you could say they are potentially dangerous to humans).
It does say that, in the first sentence of Human Interactions. Besides, I think it's implied with mention of divers in the second half of the sentence. -- Yzx (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enter its oceanic habitat"--we all know it lives in the ocean.
Silky sharks are occasionally found in places like reefs, where there are more people; the qualifier is there to clarify that the open ocean is what's specifically referred to by "habitat". -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "U.S. state of Massachusetts to Spain in the north"--no link to Spain (or Massachusetts for that matter)?
The links to places were all removed earlier by User:SandyGeorgia, citing the MOS. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "southern Brazil to northern Angola in the south, including the Mediterranean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea"--no links here either (or in the rest of the paragraph)?
See above. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but may dive to at least 500 m (1,600 ft).[3]"--Do you mean at most?
The sources say "at least", because it may very well dive deeper than that. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still isn't clear to me...It may dive to at least one meter, since it can exist right at the surface (at least 500 m doesn't make sense).
Changed to "500 m or more" -- Yzx (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moving up to 60 km (37 mi) per day, and covering distances of up to 1,339 km (832 mi).[18]"--1,399 km in a month, year, what...surely not day.
1,339 km is the longest distance over which a tagged shark has been recaptured, and thus the longest distance we know that an individual shark has moved. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this be clarified in the article if that is the case?
Is this necessary? The sentence already makes it clear that we're talking about records from individual sharks. -- Yzx (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but I still think some sort of time-line is necessary. Something like "covering distances of up to 1,399 km (821 mi) over the course of one stint of data collection (awful wording, but I think you know what I mean).
1,339 km is the farthest apart that two captures of the same shark has been. It makes no assumptions about those captures being consecutive or in the same bout of data collection. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skin in front of the nostrils."--I don't think the link to "nostril" is particularly necessary here (unless the page was specific to the nostrils of aquatic animals...which its not).
Delinked. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first dorsal fin is relatively small, less than a tenth as high as the shark is long, and originates behind the free rear tips of the pectoral fins; it has a rounded apex, an "S"-shaped rear margin, and a free rear tip about half as long as the fin is tall."--This sentence is also quite cumbersome.
Split into two sentences. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. -- Yzx (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "Known parasites of this shark include the isopod Gnathia trimaculata,[32] the copepod Kroeyerina cortezensis,[33] and the tapeworms Dasyrhynchus variouncinatus and Phyllobothrium sp.[34][35]"--since in most if not all other instances you put the scientific name in parenthesis, I think it should also be done here.
Putting scientific names in parentheses are for species with common names. These parasites don't have common names. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including tuna, mackerel, sardines, mullets, groupers, snappers, mackerel scads, sea chubs, sea catfish, eels, lanternfishes, filefishes, triggerfishes, and porcupinefishes"--seems like a little too many examples.
These are all taken from the source, and without information on their relative importance I don't want to make a value judgment on which ones to cut.
  • I'll strike it for now, but the sentence is still difficult to read.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Studies conducted off Florida"--off the coast of Florida might be a little more conventional.
Changed to "Florida coast". -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curiously, these studies [...]"--don't know if "curiously" is needed.
Removed. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the placenta of the silky shark is less similar to the analogous mammalian structure"--sort of a second-hand way of saying they're not the same (maybe you could just say "different" instead of "less similar").
The point is not that it's different, but in the degree of difference relative to other sharks, which the sentence states. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whereas mating and parturition in the "--I would link parturition (or say birth instead).
Changed to "birthing". -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The litter size ranges from 1 to 16 and increases with female size, with 6–12 being typical.[2]"--6-12 being common for what size female, full grown?
Only mature females (I assume that's what you mean by "fully grown") bear young. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, my fault...I meant to ask, since the lengths of the females effects the offspring count, what length shark would produce (the typical) 6-12 young.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Across all sizes of females. "Typical" implies that if you were to randomly select a pregnant female from the population, that her litter would most likely be somewhere between 6 and 12. -- Yzx (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the now-subadult shark migrates out from the nursery"--the sentence before has a plural subject, this is singular.
Fixed. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"growth rate of the silky shark is moderate among shark species"--The silky shark is a species all its own, how can the silky shark rate be different among different species?

I don't understand your point. The sentence means: among the growth rates of different sharks, the growth rate of the silky shark is moderate. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "moderate compared to other shark species."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. -- Yzx (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some sport fishers value silky sharks.[6]"--A bit of a cliff-hanger...value them for what (the sport they provide)?
The source doesn't go into any more detail. I assume so. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider removing it (if it is unsure what is meant.?-NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like removing information for this reason. We know that sport fishers sometimes catch silky sharks. Regardless of why they do so it's still relevant information. -- Yzx (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they value catching them, than say that (just saying they value them is ambiguous).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "catching them" seem a tad obvious to need such explicit phrasing? They are sport fishers after all. -- Yzx (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, after reading that section I wasn't really clear what they did.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Some sport fishers catch silky sharks." -- Yzx (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The total annual catch reported to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)"--sort of an aesthetic choice, but this sentence may mark a good spot to start a new paragraph.
The statistics are a direct continuation of the thought of the previous sentence, which is the decline of silky shark populations. -- Yzx (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It should benefit from bans on shark finning,"--unsure if it refers to the silky shark of the aforementioned law (It makes the most sense if it's the shark, but still unclear).
The sentence only makes sense if "it" refers to the shark. -- Yzx (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Than I would change it to "Silky sharks should benefit..."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would put two sentences in a row that start almost the same way. -- Yzx (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the grammar of these several sentences makes what it means unclear.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I agree. Interpreting "it" to mean "silky shark" is the only interpretation that remotely makes sense given context. -- Yzx (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This caught my eye... why not just change "It ..." to "The species ..."? Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would resolve my issue with the sentence.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. -- Yzx (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it, tie up the loose ends or prove me wrong an the remaining things and you'll have my support.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed learning about this species of shark, great work by the nominator (changed to support).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources all look okay, but I have one comment. Instead of "hiding" the alphabetical list of sources, why not show it? It would be a useful rapid guide to the sources used. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not hidden, it's just a list-defined references format so they're all under References. No need to duplicate them to have them in alphabetical order. -- Yzx (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. Personally I find an alphabetical summary of sources very useful, but it's your call. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correct or a typo?

  • Garrick, J.A.f. (1982).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Silky_shark/archive1&oldid=1078806629"