Talk:Great white shark/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Hi! I shall review this. I am leaving some preliminary comments, may have more also. I go section-wise, it is convenient.[reply]

Lead

A common word like 'ocean' need not be linked. Special terms ought to be linked (for example 'maturity', good you linked it). Done
There need not be much referencing in the lead section, unless the facts are not to be discussed anywhere in the rest of the article. ✗ Not done
I think you should write 'sexual maturity' and not just 'maturity'. It can have various meanings. ✗ Not done it links to sexual maturity
' It is the only known surviving species of its genus; Carcharodon' No need of semicolon after 'genus'. Done
'The IUCN treats the great white shark as a vulnerable' Better rewrite it as 'The IUCN lists the great white shark as a vulnerable species'. Done
I found the IUCN link (footnote 2) is dead. It must be removed. Done - Fixed!
I think this needs some clarification - 'It is the only known ... and is ranked first in having the most attacks on humans' implies humans are prey of this shark, while 'In reality, humans are not the preferred prey of the great white shark' contradicts the statement. Perhaps (if I think right) you could write 'and is ranked first in having the most attacks on humans, though it does not intend to prey on them'. I think this statement should be in the last paragraph of the lead, and 'In reality ... great white shark' can be omitted if you write as I have suggested. ✗ Not done humans may be prey as they may be rouge sharks. But still it is ranked first but it doesn't imply that.

Overall : This part looks fine, no more comments!

Etymology Taxonomy

I suggest you make a new section 'Taxonomy and evolution', and put information about who first described the species, when and the genus, family and so on of the species. You can make another paragraph and use the information in 'Ancestry and fossil record'. ✗ Not done Taxonomy and evolution is etymology.

OK, but I suggest at least rename the section as 'Taxonomy', it would look proper, with the fossil records along too. For one thing fossil records do not have much to do with etymology, do they?

Done - changed to taxonomy

I think you should use any one picture of fossils, else the text gets squashed. Done
In the last line of 'Ancestry and fossil record', there is no reference. If it is footnote 11, add it at the end. And the footnote 11 need not be repeated everywhere. It can be written just once after the text, which implies all that text is based on this source. Done

Overall:Pass

Distribution and habitat

'After they arrive,...for up to 10 minutes' Write 10 as ten, numbers till ten (including it) should be written in words according to MoS. But these does not include numbers in which convert template is used, or decimals (of course!) Done

Missed one more, corrected!

Thanks!

Overall:This section is done!

Anatomy and appearance

The introduction is unreferenced. Done
In 'size', the metric units are linked. This is not required at all. Done
'ichthyological' should be linked (to icthyology'). Done
I think this section is too long, could you make it smaller, with necessary details? The records and observations seem to be consuming too much space. ✗ Not done it is fine.
Who is J. E. Randall? ✗ Not done - it is a quote.

Fine, but good if you can identify him.

Anatomy and appearance of the animal seems to have nothing to do with its adaptations and bite. So why have it in this section? Adaptations could be another section and bite force as a part of behavior. ✗ Not done - Bite force is an adaptation, and adaptations are apart of anatomy.
In the Section Adaptation there is an incorrect calculation of temperature, 14 C is incorrectly labeled as 25 F, instead of the 57.2 F, that 14 C actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.11 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:This too, pass!

Ecology and behavior

You can make Ecology and behavior on section, and add the thing about bite force in the previous section, Natural threats and Breaching behavior a part of this. Diet and Reproduction can be independent sections. Many articles do this. ✗ Not done - per above.
If the introductory part is wholly based on footnote 32, cite at the end of each paragraph. That is proper. Done
I see 'Diet' needs linking, so do not delete links here. But remove the one for 'carnivorous'. ✗ Not done explain.

Seems too common a word. And also fish.

Took away fish but not carnivorous since not that many people know what it means. Obtund^Talk 01:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, as per MoS, write numbers from one to ten in words. Done
In 'Reproduction', the part about sexual maturity should be before the part about gestation and birth. Done

I rewrote the first line. Now it looks fine!

In 'Natural threats' convert 500 m to ft. Done

Overall : OK, Pass, now!

Relationship with humans

In 'Shark attacks', who is John McCosker? Same with Tricas. Remember, the people must be identified to the reader. Done
In 'Attacks on boats', write 5 in words. Done
In 'Great white sharks in captivity', no need of comma after August. Done
In 'Shark tourism', 'Cage diving is most common off the coasts of South Australia, South Africa, and Guadalupe Island which is off the coast of Baja, California, where great whites are frequent their' is incorrect. It can be rewritten as 'Cage diving is most common off the coasts of South Australia, South Africa, and Guadalupe Island (which is off the coast of Baja, California, where great whites are frequent).' Done
'Conservation status' could be made into a new section, and the material from 'natural threats' can be used to describe the dangers to the species' population. Done

Overall:Also a pass!

Rest parts

In footnotes, many references are not properly written with cite templates. Done
External links uses too many links. But I may not be right, at the same time. ✗ Not done - I agree with you but is there a rule saying that there is a certain amount?
Could you tell me how you have classified the citations as references and footnotes? Done - I have changed it to references and removed the other reference section because the sources were listed above.
Another comment- About the photo captions. Those which are not full sentences, just phrases, should not have full stops in the end. And those which are sentences, need full stops. Check the captions for this. And just a normal comment, look for disambig links using the tool in the toolbox on this page (up above, you will find it). Done

That is all for now. Fix these problems and reply here. If you wish to contact me, you can write here or on my talk page.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Obtund^Talk 12:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seen your talkback. I have summed up the comments on the sections, if they are pass or not. One or two are left, resolve them, then the article is well and truly done. Cheers! --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first link to the Ocean Portal needs updating and the title is way too long. Proper link - "http://ocean.si.edu/great-white-shark" and maybe just call it "Great White Shark - Smithsonian Ocean Portal" Attaboygirl (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the refs

I have rewrote many more references.

I think ref 29 (jawshark.com) is not such a reliable source. It does not even properly mention its own source. Better remove it. Done

Once done with this, I shall make this a GA!--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Obtund^Talk 01:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! So now, for the final evaluation:

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

c. no original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Great life-like images, good! Even a video to satisfy the reader!

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Great article; it had to be a GA!

Cheers! --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]