Talk:Portuguese dogfish

Copyright problem removed

This article was based on the corresponding article at fishbase.org or niwascience.co.naz, neither of which are compatibly licensed for Wikipedia. It has been revised on this date as part of a large-scale project to remove infringement from these sources. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion and the cleanup task force subpage.) Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portuguese dogfish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, let's start

• Absorption, Decapod and Quota are dabs

• Fixed

• images and maps OK
• Links missing for full on-line text for many of your references. Here's one, the very first I checked, selected at random from the list Catch analysis and productivity of the deepwater dogfish resource in southern Australia.

• It is my understanding that furnishing online text links for academic sources is not mandated for any article.

• 1-29 looks odd, up to 29 maybe?

• Changed

• Taxonomy - what are its closest relatives. Is the Mediterranean form a different subspecies?

• No phylogenetic studies of this shark have been done, nor have any subspecies been designated (the use of this taxonomic category is not widespread in sharks)

• Is there any difference in appearance other than size for the two sexes?

• As in all cartilaginous fishes, males can be identified by having claspers. I don't bother stating this explicitly though, just like every mammal article doesn't mention that males have a penis in the description.

• The Portuguese dogfish has more acute vision... isn't this sentence "Description"?

• The acuity of an eye is a physiological attribute, not a descriptive one.

• It is mainly valued for its liver, which contains 22–49% squalene What is the liver used for - is it eaten? What's the significance of the high squalene content?

• It's mainly used in health foods/cosmetics for its vitamin content, though some people think it has other beneficial properties as well.

I think that's all for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left my responses; let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is clearly of GA standard, and I'll pass it as such. Two points to consider

• I didn't know that males can be identified by having claspers, and I suspect most non-specialists wouldn't. I think it would be useful to add that
• It may not be mandatory to add links to full text and pdfs, but it seems perverse to deliberately chose to make life more more difficult for readers wishing to access your references. It's not as if adding urls as you go along requires much effort. Personally I don't bother with links for abstracts, but I'd always link full articles. Still, it's your call

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)