Talk:Japanese angelshark/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"is a species of angel shark, family Squatinidae" Seems jargony, add "of the family Squatinidae"?

I don't like using the "of the family" here because that makes it sound like "Squatinidae" is a category within "angel shark", rather than that they're synonymous.

Is there perhaps another, less formal, way to phrase it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I prefer to have "family Squatinidae" in the intro (since I refer to the family elsewhere in the article), and I don't think the 'noun, synonym,' construction is all that unusual? -- Yzx (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Japanese angelshark diverged from the rest of the Asian angelshark lineage" Japanese angelshark lineage perhaps? The species hardly remained unchanged for 100 million years.

Changed.

"It is a bottom-dwelling shark found over sand" Sounds a bit odd, can it be rephrased? Inhabiting sand covered ocean floors, or soem such?

Changed to "found in sandy habitats"

"Litters of two to ten pups" isn't the word "pup" reserved for mammals?

Newborn sharks and rays have always been called pups, as far as I know.

Alright. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, not any more to add, nice images, sources and all, so I'll pass. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]