Talk:False catshark/GA1

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

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):
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Contains all the key topics. All content is relevant to the topic.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No obvious signs of POV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * All looks good since the major expansion.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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)