Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Porbeagle/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 promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 14 April 2010.

Porbeagle

 * Nominator(s): Yzx (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it's pretty comprehensive and meets the criteria. It's the first article I've nominated for FA status so we'll see how it goes. Yzx (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments (I'll review more fully later) I fixed the links to disambiguation pages. Several external links to elasmo-research.org are currently dead, probably temporarily. Ucucha 12:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: If this is your first stab at a featured article, it's a very commendable effort: well-presented, well written, and apparently comprehensive and well-sourced. Without any specialist knowledge I can't comment on its accuracy or technical quality, but here are a few prose suggestions from the early sections of the article:-
 * Lead
 * "In the North Pacific, the closely related salmon shark (L. ditropis) takes its place." The last phrase, "takes its place", doesn't seem appropriate. Perhaps reword as "In the North Pacific, its equivalent is the closely related salmon shark (L. ditropis)."
 * Rephrased


 * "Behavior" is a mass noun that should not be pluralised.
 * Fixed


 * Distribution and habitat
 * I am slightly confused by this sentence: "The porbeagle has a global amphitemperate (missing from the tropics) distribution, mostly within 30–70°N and 30–50°S latitudes, except in the North Pacific where its niche is assumed by the salmon shark." What is the parenthetical insert referring to? And I thought we had established that the North Pacific salmon sharks were a separate counterpart, yet the "except in" phrasing appears to classify them with the porbeagle.
 * The parenthetical insert is to define "amphitemperate", since general readers probably aren't familiar with the term. I've rephrased it so hopefully it's clearer.


 * "as far north as southern Chile..." Southern Chile is the most southerly landmass in the southern hemisphere bar Antarctica, so "as far north as" reads oddly, especially when listed with places like Brazil which are much farther north.
 * Took out the "southern"


 * "much of the population spends the spring in the deep waters of the Nova Scotia continental shelf, and migrate north..." Should be "migrates"
 * Fixed


 * Biology and ecology
 * "Natural annual mortality is low..." It is hard for the non-expert to understand why the figures which follow this statement are "low" (10%, 15%, 20%) unless there are comparisons with other marine species.
 * The source only states that this mortality figure is low and doesn't give any comparative figures. I'm reticent about finding mortality estimates for other species myself as that might constitute original research.

I hope a reviewer with the appropriate professional credentials comes along soon, to do justice to what on the face of it seems a high-quality article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. -- Yzx (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I did the GA review for this article and suggested that Yzx take it here; I found the prose mostly clear and compelling and saw no obvious gaps in coverage. I did a check in the Zoological Record to find whether there any unused sources, and found a few that may be of service:
 * Title: Tag and release of pelagic shark species by the observers on the Japanese tuna longline vessels in the Atlantic Ocean.
 * Author(s): Matsunaga, Hiroaki
 * Source: International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas Collective Volume of Scientific Papers Volume: 64 Page(s): 1690-1692 Published: 2009
 * This article includes only very brief tag data for the porbeagle, and would be of more utility to the blue shark article


 * Title: Diversity, distribution, richness and abundance of deep-sea chondrichthyans along south Patagonian Archipelago, Cape Horn, Diego Ramirez Islands and the northern area of the Drake Passage.
 * Author(s): Reyes, Pablo R.; Torres-Florez, Juan P.
 * Source: Revista de Biologia Marina y Oceanografia Volume: 44 Issue: 1 Page(s): 243-251 Published: 2009
 * This article is in Spanish, and in any case is probably too narrowly focused


 * Title: A comparative study of the ocular skeleton of fossil and modern chondrichthyans.
 * Author(s): Pilgrim, Brettney L.; Franz-Odendaal, Tamara A.
 * Source: Journal of Anatomy Volume: 214 Issue: 6 Page(s): 848-858 Published: June 2009
 * Far too esoteric, I think, at least for a species article; it might have a place on an article about shark anatomy


 * Title: Morphological identification of fins of the main traded pelagic shark species in chile: blue shark (Prionace glauca Linnaeus), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrhinchus Rafinesque), and porbeagle (Lamna nasus Bonnaterre).
 * Author(s): Hernandez, Sebastian; Haye, Pilar A.; Acuna, Enzo
 * Source: Gayana Volume: 73 Issue: 1 Page(s): 33-39 Published: 2009
 * Couldn't gain access to this one, though this paper on the same subject basically confirms that records of this shark's fins being traded are accurate
 * It is at http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-65382009000100005


 * Title: The rise and fall (again) of the porbeagle shark population in the Northwest Atlantic.
 * Author(s): Campana, Steven E.; Joyce, Warren; Marks, Linda; et al.
 * Source: Fish and Aquatic Resources Series Volume: 13 Page(s): 445-461 Published: 2008
 * This also appears as a chapter in Sharks of the Open Ocean, and its main points are recapitulated in an earlier chapter that is used in the article; I want to keep the fishery section as concise as possible, as it's very numbers-heavy already


 * Title: Trade in and conservation of two shark species, porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias).
 * Author(s): Fowler, Sarah; Raymakers, Caroline; Grimm, Ute
 * Source: BfN-Skripten Volume: 118 Page(s): 1-58 Published: 2004
 * This is basically the same information as in the IUCN reports, which is not surprising as the same people worked on them both; there are a few tidbits worth mentioning though


 * Title: Age under-estimation in New Zealand porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus): is there an upper limit to ages that can be determined from shark vertebrae?
 * Author(s): Francis, Malcolm P.; Campana, Steven E.; Jones, Cynthia M.
 * Source: Marine and Freshwater Research Volume: 58 Issue: 1 Page(s): 10-23 Published: 2007
 * Information from this is already used in the article (via secondary source); the broader discussion of possible inaccuracy in older vertebral aging methods I think is better saved for elsewhere


 * Title: On the occurrence of the porbeagle, Lamna nasus (Bonnaterre, 1788) (Chondrichthyes: Lamnidae), off Italian coasts (northern and central Mediterranean Sea): a historical survey.
 * Author(s): Storai, Tiziano; Celona, Antonio; Zuffa, Marco; et al.
 * Source: Annales Series Historia Naturalis (Koper) Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Page(s): 195-202 Published: 2005
 * This article confirms that porbeagles are rare in the Mediterranean, which is also stated in the IUCN report


 * Title: Morphology and evolution of the jaw suspension in lamniform sharks.
 * Author(s): Wilga, C.D.
 * Source: Journal of Morphology Volume: 265 Issue: 1 Page(s): 102-119 Published: July 2005
 * Too technical for anyone but a fish anatomist (which I'm not). In any case its interesting parts seem to be the comparative/evolutionary implications, which belong in a higher-order taxon article

And some more. I think many do not add anything important that is not in the article, but there are probably a few that do contain interesting bids that are not yet in. I can send you the complete list and assist in getting some of those references if you wish. Ucucha 02:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left brief comments on why I didn't use most of the above sources; basically they were either too technical or covered existing ground. Feel free to bring any additional articles you think might be interesting to my attention though, and thanks for the effort. -- Yzx (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; your motivations for not using the articles are good. I left a link to the Gayana piece. Ucucha 10:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Support all issues resolved; comprehensive and engaging article. Ucucha 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I read through the article again and found one possible problem: You write that the diversification of Lamna during the Paleogene took place because of the formation of the Arctic ice sheet, but our article Arctic sea ice ecology and history says the sheet formed no more than 4 mya. Ucucha 19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article says that the evolution of Lamna itself was during the Paleogene, and that the time frame for the divergence of its two extant species is unknown. So it could've been around 4 mya (or not; it's just a theory at present). -- Yzx (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should have read more closely. Supporting now. Ucucha 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. -- Yzx (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good from a writing standpoint; other than the images, which I'm not really qualified enough to review, the article is cohesive and seems to be of excellent quality. :)  ceran  thor 13:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. -- Yzx (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Very well written and interesting shark article; I hope it's the first of many at FAC. The only thing I can suggest is a cite and link to the protologue, available here. Sasata (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the link, and thanks for the support. -- Yzx (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Overall, the article looks very well done. However, the text does not precisely support the data given in the range map. The text states, "In the North Atlantic, the northern limit of its range extends from the Newfoundland Grand Banks off Canada, through southern Greenland, to Scandinavia and Russia; the southern limit of its range extends from New Jersey, through the Azores and Madeira, to Morocco. It is found in the Mediterranean Sea, but not the Black Sea. North Atlantic sharks may stray as far south as North Carolina, Bermuda, and the Gulf of Guinea."
 * The range map shows the Porbeagle's occasional range as far south as Jacksonville, Florida. It does not show them occasionally present as far south as the Gulf of Guinea. Although Bermuda is listed in the text alongside "possibly straying" areas, on the map it is shown in dark blue, the color of confirmed populations. Either the range map is incorrect, or the text needs some work in this section. They cannot both be correct. Firsfron of Ronchester  16:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It should actually be "South Carolina", so I fixed that in the text, and I fixed the map to show the possible South Carolina and West African parts of the range. I also moved Bermuda out of the "straying" part of the text. -- Yzx (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.