Talk:Hardnose shark/GA1

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

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

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)

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


 * 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)
 * Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

GA review (see here for criteria)

 Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)