Talk:Silky shark/GA1

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

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) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "The silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis, is...." - as a style issue, I usually put the scientific name in parentheses, as there are usually commas all over the place. Not a big deal though.
 * I actually find parentheses less aesthetically pleasing than the commas, since I think they disrupt the prose in a way that's distracting in the lead sentence. I'll change it if too many people find it bothersome though.
 * It is about 50/50 each way I think. Click on any bio article and see. No biggie anyway and a style issue for which there is no consensus really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Taxonomy and phylogeny, it would be nice if there were a statement stating the closest relationships of the shark are unclear (as they appear to be). However, this'd need a source saying that.
 * The branch of Carcharhinus that the silky shark's in is actually fairly well-resolved compared to the rest of the genus; I've rephrased the paragraph to put emphasis on the later molecular studies, and tried to make clear that Dosay-Akbulut doesn't really contradict Naylor (since the 3 species of the group included in Dosay-Abkulut's study resolved out together).
 * Reads better now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There may be four distinct populations of silky sharks inhabiting separate ocean basins worldwide - hmm, I see only three big oceans. Is there some more info on how/what/where the populations are?
 * Unfortunately I don't have full access to the relevant source, just snippets. I'd guess that the populations are Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Gulf of Mexico, based on life history.


 * However, they can respond with startling swiftness to any shift in the status quo'' - odd phrase at the end, "any changes in their immediate environment" or "surroundings" ?
 * Changed to "immediate surroundings"


 *  It does not frequently come into contact.. --> "It only rarely comes into contact.."
 * Changed


 * The conservation material is alarming. Any more data from anywhere else? If not, that's fine.
 * Well, the IUCN (re)assessment only came out in 2009. Probably hasn't been enough time for more material.

To summarise, much the most polished of shark articles I have seen you write. Well done, and very nearly there. I am being a little nitpicky as I'd like to give this one some extra oomph to propel it towards FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the issues; let me know of any others. -- Yzx (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There were no real deal-breakers anyway. This one passes. If you can get the paper with the four populations, that would be a pretty big step towards FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)