Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Great white 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) 12:13, 30 May 2017.

Great white shark

 * Nominator(s): Pvmoutside (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe this article should be featured because it is well referenced with over 125 inline citations, was the most popular fish related article during April 2017 according to WikiProject Fishes/Popular pages, and the information looks pretty complete according to a scan of references from Google scholar.......I had a brief discussion with admin Casliber. The issues with the admin have been addressed......

This article is about...The Great white shark species Pvmoutside (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jim
The text is in need of a copy edit. So far, I've come across the following issues
 * There are a few duplicate links, some of which, like California, barely needing to be linked once
 * "however" is seriously overworked and nearly always unnecessary
 * According to a 2014 study the lifespan of great white sharks is estimated to be as long as 70 years or more, well above older estimates->According to a 2014 study the lifespan of great white sharks is estimated as 70 years or more, well above earlier estimates
 * 59,413 kg (130,983 lb).&mdash; tonnes/tons seems more natural
 * It is also known to prey upon->it preys upon
 * ranked first in having the most recorded shark bite incidents on human->''has the most recorded shark bite incidents on human
 * its first scientific name, Squalus carcharias&mdash;something missing there
 * which means sharp or jagged, and odous, which means&mdash; close repetition of something that doesn't need to be there anyway
 * According to J. E. Randall&mdash; he and other people are given without a link, nationality, profession, or any indication of why what they think is significant.
 * I'd like to see the text tightened up before I continue reviewing, I'm picking up infelicities which may be minor but seem too numerous as it stands Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: on the count of the nominator has not been a major contributor. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The major contributor has not been involved in anything Wikipedia for about a year......Pvmoutside (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant, you are clearly not equipped to deal with the problems this article may have like a major contributor would. LittleJerry (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * On the face of it, I would suggest sending this to copy edit and peer review before nominating for FAC. In addition to the problems mentioned by others, I also see many paragraphs ending without citations. The GA nominator, who may have written much of the article, should also have been contacted. --FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The peer review in Wikiproject fishes is non-existent. Other featured article candidates have had copy edits performed during the featured article nomination process. I still intend to work through the copy edit process to get this article up to snuff..... The article is well citationed with most sentences cited.  This article at present is cited far more than other featured articles....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think you misunderstand; you have sentences hanging at the end of paragraphs that have no citations (for example the last under "Size", and the first under "Examples of large etc"). It is impossible to know what these sentences are based on. As for peer review, it doesn't have to be project based, there's a general one: FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.