Talk:Squatina squatina/GA1

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

I'm familiar with this fish, from diving off Tenerife, but found this article a good read and learned a lot I didn't know about it. More detailed comments to follow. --RexxS (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks like it will meet the good article criteria, but there are a few minor issues that could be considered. Please feel free to respond either beneath each comment or at the end:


 * 1) I was looking for a cite to verify the conservation status, and it took me a while to realise that the World Conservation Union is actually the IUCN. Although it may have been known as WCU when the status was determined, would you consider replacing "World Conservation Union" with "International Union for Conservation of Nature" as it has now reverted to that name and it makes it clearer that the citations refer to that body. --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * 1) Should "Critically Endangered" be capitalised? MOS:CAPS suggests that only proper nouns should be capitalised (with a few exceptions). --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I capitalized it to indicate that it's a formal category delineated by the IUCN, as opposed to a colloqual usage of those words.
 * I can see the reason why you capitalised it, but Wikipedia does not use proper case for emphasis or for labels. It uses it for proper nouns, which "critically endangered" is not. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is so then Wikipedia MOS should probably not be so rigid. I'm inclined to follow the usage practices of the original source (IUCN) in this case.
 * Any manual of style will be rigid to some extent. Wikipedia's is probably less so than most, in that it describes the consensus reached by editors, rather than being prescriptive, and should be taken as being an aid to consistency across Wikipedia. Considering that the article Critically endangered is internally inconsistent when it uses those words, it would be churlish of me to push the issue further with you. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Quotations: all direct quotations should be cited. I would have liked to see where Diphilus and Mnesitheus described its meat as "light" and "easily digestible". If that's covered in the Dalby reference, ignore this comment, but consider whether the placement of the cite is optimal. --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The quotes come from Dalby, though both Dalby and Matron cover Ancient Greek sources on the subject. The sentences in the article come from a mix of both sources.
 * 1) This article explains jargon quite well, but I had to look up "demersal" in the last paragraph . Would a link to demersal fish or demersal zone be appropriate? --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * 1) References are generally very good, although the Davy Jones Diving source probably won't meet WP:RS - that's not a problem here as it merely reinforces the IUCN cite associated with it in the text, and provides another view . However, as a matter of style, I suggest that in the references you should separate authors with semicolons and reserve the comma to separate last name from first name or initial. (Current ref #15 doesn't separate "Matron, S. Olson, D." at all.) Since using full first names is encouraged (WP:Citing sources/example style), it becomes difficult to sort out authors if a comma is used for both purposes. --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Davy Jones link goes to a scientific poster which received support from Davy Jones, so it is reliable while the site itself probably isn't. I've swapped the initials around to make the refs clearer; I'm reticent to use either first names or semicolons as they are not consistent with scientific citation.
 * You would be better citing the poster from a reliable source, but that's a very minor point. Unfortunately, "scientific citation" is an ill-defined term and many variations in detail exist, so attempting to be consistent with that is probably not good practice on Wikipedia. Since this is a not a paper encyclopedia, we don't have the same constraints on space - nor do we have the same readership - as scientific journals. If you want to be consistent with practice on Wikipedia, I suggest you look at what is produced by using the template cite journal in its full form. For example:
 * produces:
 * The full form has the potential to yield better metadata on author. Nevertheless, none of this is essential for GA. I merely suggest you may wish to consider it if you develop the article to FA. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is quite comprehensive. I was fascinated to read that "[a]ggregations numbering up to a hundred have been observed ...", but it made me wonder if anything is know about the angelshark's social interactions? I've only ever seen solitary individuals, so I have to ask if there are sources that would allow a section or paragraph to be written describing its solitary/group behaviour (and any reasons for those)? --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not encounter any such data; likely pertinent studies have not yet been done as social observations of sharks in the wild tend to be hard to come by.
 * That's what I expected, and it's a pity that we don't have more information. By the way, the site http://www.elasmodiver.com/ doesn't look like it meets WP:RS. Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably wouldn't stand up to FA, but the credentials of the site author gives me little reason to doubt his field observations.
 * If the author has acknowledged authority in this field, then that is usually sufficient, even for FA. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Images are all appropriately licensed and contribute effectively to the article. I would strongly recommend adding alt text (see WP:ALT). Although that is required only for FA as yet, good alt text benefits visually-impaired readers and would enhance this article. --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added for 3 of 4; I'm not sure how to do this for the infobox picture.
 * The template Taxobox allows the "|image_alt=" and "|range_map_alt=" parameters. I've added alt text for both images there. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lengths are given as metric (imperial) throughout with the exception of "6 nautical miles (11 km)". I see that NM is the unit used in the source, but WP:MOS implies a preference for consistency. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed.
 * 1) The source mentioned in the previous comment actually only applies to England. From your text, I gather a similar order applies to Wales, would you be able to cite it if challenged? --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added additional source.
 * 1) Images are all appropriately licensed and contribute effectively to the article. I would strongly recommend adding alt text (see WP:ALT). Although that is required only for FA as yet, good alt text benefits visually-impaired readers and would enhance this article. --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added for 3 of 4; I'm not sure how to do this for the infobox picture.
 * The template Taxobox allows the "|image_alt=" and "|range_map_alt=" parameters. I've added alt text for both images there. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lengths are given as metric (imperial) throughout with the exception of "6 nautical miles (11 km)". I see that NM is the unit used in the source, but WP:MOS implies a preference for consistency. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed.
 * 1) The source mentioned in the previous comment actually only applies to England. From your text, I gather a similar order applies to Wales, would you be able to cite it if challenged? --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added additional source.
 * 1) The source mentioned in the previous comment actually only applies to England. From your text, I gather a similar order applies to Wales, would you be able to cite it if challenged? --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added additional source.
 * Added additional source.

All in all, the issues above are minor when considering the quality of this article. Further comments are welcome. --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've responded to the issues raised; let me know of others. -- Yzx (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention to my comments. I'd be grateful if you'd re-examine #2 and #6, and see if you agree with my interpretation of WP:CAPS and WP:RS. The rest is really for consideration if you want to develop the article further. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left comment on those points. -- Yzx (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As this review has only been active for three days, I'd prefer to give an opportunity for any other comments for at least another 24 hours. Unless other concerns are raised in that time, I can see no reason why this article should not be granted GA status. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Summary of above and with an absence of further issues Well done. You may also want to consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN - we always need more reviewers! --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2009 (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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

WP:NOR & WP:RS for reference #8: Murch, A. Common Angel Shark Information and Pictures
All three attributions, listed below, of reference #8: “Murch, A. Common Angel Shark Information and Pictures” are not part of an original research which was part of a scientific publication. Furthermore, the author does not specify his information source. Question if this reference meets the criteria WP:NOR & WP:RS? Attributions: [a] Aggregations numbering up to a hundred have been observed off Gran Canaria in the summer. [b] Individual sharks select sites that offer the best ambush opportunities, and if successful may remain there for several days. [c] When approached underwater the angelshark usually remains still or swims away, though there is a record of one circling a diver with its mouth open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.159.129 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)