Talk:Hardnose shark/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 05:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'll start the review later, got to get some gardening done before the rain starts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

First pass Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the map, there are at least six BE English-speaking countries in this shark's range, and none that are AE English-speaking. AE seems an inappropriate variety of English.

I ran the text through an online AE-BE convertor. I'm not that familiar with BE so let me know if I missed something.

• You don't need the species' name in the range map, it's assumed to be for the subject of the article

True, I just like the longer caption because I think less white space looks better in the infobox.

• modest-sized—not sure this works, "medium-sized" or "modest" ?

Changed to "modestly sized"

• perhaps a couple of words qualifying Theodore Gill, as you have done with the Germans

Added

• macloti I understand, but why Maclot's shark when he's named Macklot?

I don't know why. Maybe people forgot the etymology and just went by the binomial.

• In the description, I'd be inclined to start with the general appearance rather than the, admittedly peculiar, snout.

Rearranged

• originates roughly over the pectoral fin free rear tips.—not sure I understand this, why "free"

This is a specific technical term for sharks. I've added a link for it.

• less than 50 km (31 mi) —"31" seems over-precise for a "less than"

Adjusted the sig figs for the conversion

• Bony fishes form the main part of its diet—"its" separated from its subject by an intervening sentence

Changed to "this shark's diet"

• Known parasites—as opposed to unknown?

"Known" removed

• Ref 1 needs italicised binomial

Fixed

I'll have another read after I see your comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything above looks OK, I'll probably leave it until tomorrow to have a second read. If I don't find anything significant, I'll do the GA then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)