Talk:Coral catshark/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk • contribs • count ) 21:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps worth mentioning the second common name in the lead?
 * It doesn't seem to be used very much; at least none of the sources I've looked at use it
 * "two at a time on the bottom, that hatch after 4–6 months" Awkward
 * Rephrased a bit
 * "Another common name for this species is marbled catshark.[7]" Rather than being tacked on the end of the section, this could be tied to the fact that the specific name means "marbled"
 * Moved sentence
 * "may rest together. Individual sharks may" Repetition
 * Rephrased
 * "The female deposits the eggs on the bottom, rather than attaching them to vertical structures." So they just sit on the floor? Not buried, not attached, not anything? Are they eaten by other animals?
 * Yes they just lie on the bottom, some eggs don't even have tendrils that can be used to attach to things. This data comes from aquarium observations so there's no info on predators
 * "home aquariums" aquaria?
 * It's my understanding that both are acceptable
 * "Vulnerable" dablink
 * Fixed
 * "Anonymous [Bennett, E.T.] (1830). "Class Pisces". Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles. pp. 686–694." Publisher? Is there one? Also, be consistent as to whether you give publisher locations
 * There's no publisher given where I've seen it cited elsewhere in papers and such
 * Removed location from the one ref
 * The sourcing on File:Cat shark.jpg is a little questionable. Also, I don't think the current lead image is as good as the one in the prose.
 * Agreed the source on that file seems a bit dodgy, but I don't have evidence that it comes from somewhere else, and it's valuable in that it's the only photo available that was actually taken in the wild
 * The one in the prose (I assume the second photo?) is of a juvenile; the one in the lead was I thought the best one with a full-body adult

Generally looking great- answers all the questions, well sources, well written. I made a couple of small edits. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking through again, I can't see any issues. A shorter GA review, but the article's looking at GA standard as-is. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)