Talk:Cookiecutter shark/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I will be reviewing the article; we can begin in a day or so. I want to do a thorough read thru, and I am likely to do a ce here or there if I see something that needs to be fiddled with. heh. After that, I'll start the fun stuff... issuing decrees from my castle ;-> jk.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's just work on a few things at a time... that's how I like to review. For now; in the Taxonomy section, there needs to be a mention of the original generic name Tristius and the other synonyms used for this species, including the years. Check ref 4. Also, ref number 2 (<ref name="cas">[http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp Catalog of Fishes (Online Version)]. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved on January 26, 2010.</ref>) cannot be used as a source; it points to a database search entry page.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original genus is Scymnus, not Tristius; that's a mistake on ref 4. The CAS Catalogue of Fishes (ref 2) is a more authoritative taxonomic source. Also, ref 2 can only be cited in that way, as the individual entries in the database cannot be directly linked, but the information is readily accessible by typing in the genus or species on the entry page.
I don't like to put junior synonyms in the prose, because it would basically amount to "Synonyms of this species are..." To me, that's what the "synonyms" section of the taxobox is for. I think synonyms should only be mentioned in the prose if they're noteworthy in some way, or otherwise it's just redundant. -- Yzx (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Should the original paper on the shark and the identification of its bite marks be added? Isistius brasiliensis, a squaloid shark, the prob- able cause of crater wounds on fishes and cetaceans. U.S. Fish. Bull. 69: 791-798 --Stone (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added; it's got some interesting historical info. -- Yzx (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there a hint what the source of the bioluminescence. Microbes or produced by the shark? --Stone (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

All bioluminescent sharks produce their own light, not via bacteria. I've added the word "intrinsic" to note this. -- Yzx (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Stone (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding synonyms, prose, etc.; I see what you're saying, Yzw... so do go with your discretion on that :) However, on ref no. 2; I searched under both the common name and binomial in that database, but the most I got back was a listing of citations... no direct source material. So, let's compromise: de-cite ref 2, and let it be an external link. I can't in good conscience give a pass with that as a source; I can if its an ex-link! Moving on; in the Bio/eco section, this part reads slightly confusing:

"With small fins and weak muscles, this shark is an ambush predator that spends much of its time hovering in the water column. This is made possible by its lipid-rich liver, which can comprise some 35% of its weight. To compensate for its higher skeletal density, the body cavity and liver of this species are proportionately much larger, and their oil content much higher, than..."

Please ce-clarify; does that mean the physical and/or buoyancy needs for hovering in the water column require a lipid-rich liver and a much larger body cavity and liver? That's seemingly answered in the last sentence, but that entire segment kind of needs more 'cohesion' in the way its written.

OK, I've swapped in original references. I should note, however, the as the Catalog of Fishes is a taxonomic database, the citations are the whole point. It basically tells you the original publication that every fish genus and species was published in, the publications where any name changes occurred, and the disposition of the type specimen(s). As such it's a perfectly valid source.

But an excellent external link :-) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased to make the role of the liver in maintaining neutral buoyancy explicit. -- Yzx (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that's an awesome revision! Much clearer :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, new topic. Two questions:

1. Is there anything available on the biochemical aspects of the shark's bioluminosity?

Not that I know of. -- Yzx (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Does this shark have a marine predator?

Theoretically it could be eaten by larger fish/sharks, but I know of no specific case in which it's been found in the stomach of another animal. -- Yzx (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for today; we're about there! Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! The article has passed... it was so well-written from the get go, and I've checked against every ga item; everything meets the criteria now, so I'm done here! btw, It was nice working with you, albeit brief :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Cookiecutter shark passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass