Talk:Sicklefin weasel shark/GA1

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, long time since I reviewed one of your articles, so here goes. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The taxonomy section seems devoid of any info on classification. At least the intro mentions the family.
 * The taxonomy section mentions who classified it in its genus and when. I tend to think higher-level classifications should be the purview of the taxobox unless there's something especially noteworthy. Don't see much purpose to duplicating what's already present.


 * Is there a reason why we need to know the full name of the journal, not to mention full translation of it?
 * What's the harm of including the information?
 * I would make the case that duplicating classification info and elaborating on it (taxonomic history, synonyms, closest relatives, DNA work, etc) is way more important for this article than duplicating a journal name, which is already spelled out in full under references. FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, since you insist I've removed the journal name. I still believe that the taxonomic section has sufficient detail on classification. There's no phylogenetic data at the species level, and anything about Hemigaleus or higher I firmly believe should be on the respective pages of those groups, not on a species-level article. -- Yzx (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, but is there no explanation for the two synonyms in the taxobox? FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added some information on them. -- Yzx (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the species of octopus shown specifically part of the diet? Then why not mention the name in the caption?
 * No, it's just a generic Indonesian octopus for illustrative purposes.


 * This image shows the underside of the shark, any reason why it isn't used?
 * I've added it as a second taxobox image.


 * "Males mature sexually at around 74–75 cm (29.1–29.5 in) long" No word on what age that may be?
 * There's no age data as far as I know.

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, with tbe new clarifications, I think it's ready to pass! FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)