Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Broadnose sevengill shark/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2015.

Broadnose sevengill shark

 * Nominator(s): SwisterTwister   talk  20:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the broadnose sevengill shark which I have solely significantly improved it from its previous state and have added absolutely everything I could find about it. Additionally, for being a "Data Deficient" species, there is a remarkable amount of information. SwisterTwister  talk  20:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Burklemore1
Going to have a look now. I'm no expert on sharks, but I'll give it a go. Comments will proceed shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Article is pretty nice, but I have a few points, especially with the way you cite your sources:


 * I suggest you should rename the measurements section to description section and incorporate some information about its appearance. Not only that, the section is unsourced and choppy.
 * In the lead, its gills are mentioned several times but are never seen in the body of the article. You could add this into the description section (if you follow my suggestion).
 * I have also noticed that a lot of the anatomy mentioned in the lead is never mentioned elsewhere. Likewise, incorporate it into the description.
 * "In 2004, John G Maisey of the American Museum of Natural History published a detailed analysis, 52 pages to be exact, of the broadnose sevengill shark including imagery such as CT scans and morphology of its braincase." Perhaps you could scoop up some info from the reference you cited. Also, is it necessary to mention how many pages there is about this?
 * Book and journal citations do not need a retrieval date (only needed for websites and news links)
 * Link for reference no. 29 is dead (could go to archive.org and retrieve a copy there).
 * Journal subscription is required for reference no. 19, so use this template:
 * ISBNS should be hyphenated as ISBN-13's, use this link to convert.
 * Are the authors for ref. 10 reputable, considering the fact it is a self-published source?
 * I have noticed that some journals you have cited have been cited as webs, which is not exactly the most appropriate thing to do. This is how you should source the following, a long with additional recommendations:
 * Ref no. 6:
 * Ref no. 7:
 * Ref no. 11:
 * Ref no. 12:
 * Ref no. 14:
 * Ref no. 17:
 * Ref no. 18:
 * Ref no. 19:
 * Ref no. 20:

Since I will be gone for today, that is all for now. More to come with the references. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there are no exact photos of its gills and I simply added the best photos that were available at Commons and pretty much every photo seems to at least show what looks like seven gills (particularly this one?. As for ref. 10, I hear you but this is not the first time a self-published source has been used and it seems to contain very useful content (so I'm assuming good faith with this one). I should note I nominated this because Entoloma sinuatum looked similar to this and I thought it was FA-worthy. As for some of the unsourced content, it is found in several of the listed sources (including the "further reading" which are very detailed and contain alot of this content) but I matched some for convenience. As for the dead 29. ref, it was not dead recently and it seems to have happened because the website was redesigned. As for the John G. Maisey source, I wanted to add more but it seemed seem so technical, I wasn't sure if I could add it and still make sense (for this, I'd need to consult with someone familiar with this or a ichthyologist expert). I also mentioned the number of pages to emphasize the detail of the analysis. Finally, there are no more sources to add because I searched end to end and added the best there was. What would bring more information and insight is if there was more research and analysis performed on this species and thus a new classification by the IUCN. SwisterTwister   talk  23:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming you have went through google scholar and google books, have you gone through sites such as JSTOR, Pubmed, PMC or biodiversity library? They're great to find sources. I understand how the description of animals and such are technical and difficult to follow through (I edit ant articles and I'm still unfamiliar with a lot of the terms for their body parts). By no means I am familiar with the shark anatomy, but it would be easy to look up these terms you are not familiar with and you could find some useful pages on Wikipedia to discuss them. The paper is very detailed and would greatly benefit the article. You could ask someone who is an expert on sharks to help you with the article too. I also apologise for not returning with more comments yesterday, I was suppose to return with more comments. I was kind of... in a terrible situation. Anyway, here are some more comments:


 * As pointed out below, there needs a taxonomy section. Essentially all organisms will need a discussion about its taxonomic history. Judging from the 13 synonyms provided, the shark seems to have an interesting taxonomic history that was classified into other shark genera and different species were recognised. It would be nice to see a taxonomy section added and the reasons why it was moved to other genera and the justification of other species being erected and later syonymised. These sources are indeed attainable, online or not. This source has a small chunk about its taxonomic history, as well as the etymology of its scientific name.
 * Cite the data deficient with the following ref: (and replace ref no. 5 with it).
 * The extra reference below ref no. 33 is already cited, so why is it cited again?


 * More recommendations to source your references properly:
 * Ref no. 22:
 * Ref no. 23:
 * Ref no. 24: Combine this with the IUCN ref above
 * Ref no. 28:
 * Ref no. 29:
 * Ref no. 30:
 * Ref no. 31:
 * Ref no. 32:
 * Ref no. 33:

At the moment, I will stay neutral. The way you have formatted the references is a big concern for me, but it shouldn't be too hard to fix them up. However, the prose seems to be problematic according to other reviewers, so its best you highly consider their suggestions. The article is nice, though it needs some work (and urgently needs a taxonomic section!) If no work on my issues is done, I'll have to oppose the FA promotion. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage
Regrettably, oppose promotion at this time. Burklemore1, above, did an admirable job at addressing some of the many problems with the referencing here, but there are bigger problems with the prose. The lead is not compliant with WP:MOSLEAD; it does not provide a summary of the article. Rather, much of the information in the lead is a physical description of the species that does not appear elsewhere, and is entirely unreferenced. That should be combined with the "Measurements" section – which needs its information presented in prose and cited properly – to provide a proper section concerning the shark's description. With thirteen (!) synonyms, this really needs some discussion of its taxonomic history, too. The IUCN's justification for deeming this shark as Data Deficient is important also, and entirely unmentioned (except noted as present in an external link). This is a solid start to an article on an commercially important shark species with a long history of study despite the IUCN designation, but I'm afraid it's not ready for FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm afraid I have to agree with the above- though this article has its merits, it is not yet ready for FAC. If you nominate this at good article candidates or peer review once this review has been closed, I'd be happy to go through it with you with the aim of working towards FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- this nomination does seem premature; as well as all the points above, I note that there are some paragraphs that don't end with citations, as well as an apparent typo at the end of Range and habitat. I'm sure the issues are fixable but this amount of work should be undertaken outside the FAC process, so I'll be archiving this shortly. I agree with Josh that, when the issues have been addressed, GAN and PR would be good steps before re-nominating at FAC (which in any case cannot happen for at least two weeks after this nomination is archived, per FAC instructions). Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.