Talk:Tasmanian numbfish/GA1

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

Reviewer: Daniel Cavallari (talk · contribs) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks very promising.

Comments
The article is overall very concise and straight to the point, which is good in my opinion. A few tweaks are necessary, however. I will strike each comment as soon as adjustments are made, or satisfying explanations are given.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there's little point to doing so, since there's nothing particular to say about it. There's no sexual dimorphism that would warrant clarification of the depicted individual, no geographic variation, etc. The caption would just be a repeat of the taxobox title.
 * I understand your point of view. I'm a biologist myself and a collections manager, and it seems obvious to me that this is a museum/research collection specimen, fixated and preserved in wet media (most probably ethanol), just by looking at it. As is the case in most museum specimens, it probably has lost some of its original coloration. The average reader, however, might wonder "what is that specimen? Where did it come from? Is it a live specimen, cropped from a photograph taken in the ocean, or is it dead? Is it an adult? How big is it?" and so on. More information would avoid misinterpretation, and would make the article more encyclopedic. Something like: "A fixated specimen from CSIRO national fish colleciton". I must insist on this point. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a caption noting it's a preserved specimen. I don't think noting which collection it comes from is important, the same way we don't attribute photographers in other images. -- Yzx (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks very good. I think this is it! Congratulations. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The geographic range map caption could be a little more informative. I assume the range is represented by the shaded (blue colored) area, but it wouldn't hurt to inform the reader.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added "in blue" to the caption
 * Okay.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I miss some literature on phylogeny. A google scholar search revealed this book, which discusses elasmobranch phylogeny based on mitochondrial data. N. tasmaniensis is mentioned on pages 45, 48 and 557. Regardless of the validity of the study, I believe it is worth mentioning.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added a note about it
 * Looks great!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I miss a few other studies on neuroanatomy, biochemistry and physiology, basically this, this, this and this. I don't think they're vital to the article at this point. They may be useful during a future FA review. They're not open access papers, and maybe too much info for GA. If you're able to include them, then all the better.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * These are studies using this species as a model to look at general physiological function. I believe they're too esoteric for a species-focused zoology article.
 * I agree, but consider reviewing this in a future FAC attempt :).--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The information in this source is already in the article.
 * Ok!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)