Talk:Night shark/GA1

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

Given the prompt and easy fixes on the last shark GA nominee, I will begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No type specimen has been designated for this species. - now, that's interesting. A bonus point for an explanation :)
 * Don't know. My guess is that the original material Poey was working from didn't constitute a type specimen, but there hasn't been enough taxonomic confusion surrounding this species for anybody to bother designating a lectotype later on.


 * The pectoral fins are less than a fifth as long as the total body length.. - this statement struck me as odd - is there a significance in this WRT shark species?
 * Well, it was just a more precise way of saying "not that long", which could be diagnostic depending on what species you're comparing it to.


 * Potential predators of the night shark include larger sharks - worth listing any?
 * Not to my knowledge.


 * I would have added latin and greek terms but can't place my dictionaries. Hypo = "under", prion = saw in greek, and signatus is Latin but I'd need to check my dictionary for which meaning helps most. A more specific reference relevant to shark's be good too.
 * signatus means "signed", but I didn't include it because there's no reference directly connecting Poey's name with the meaning, so I thought I'd err on the safe side of OR. Also I haven't the slightest clue what Poey could've been referring to with that.

Again, another well-polished article...actually I will use one of these:

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - consider the above bonus peer-review-type comments for FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the OR issue is frustrating sometimes when you sorta know why some fact is such but no-one has bothered writing it up. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)