Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pigeye shark/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Pigeye shark

[edit]

Pigeye shark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Yzx (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the lesser-known doppelganger of the infamous bull shark. I'm nominating this article because I think it's comprehensive and meets the criteria. Thanks for your attention. -- Yzx (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments This article looks really, really good, and I'm going to go ahead and support. I do have a pair of minor comments though:

  • Is there a better way to phrase "remain within a local area"? I'm not sure if there is a scientific term (I'm guessing territorial isn't right) but it sounds a bit off to me.
reworded to "tends to roam within a fairly localized area." -- Yzx (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be interested in what cetaceans the pigeye shark is capable of killing, as it seems that is its largest prey item.
Details added; there's a record of one that ate a dolphin (species unknown), and it also scavenges from whale carcasses. -- Yzx (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing this article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice read, and a very thorough article as far as I can tell. I have a few prose-related suggestions, but my support is not conditional on any of them. All comments below now addressed.
  • Maybe add a comma between "short" and "blunt" in the lead?
  • "that only re-opened" ---> "that re-opened only" — "Only" should always be closest to where the emphasis is. In this case, "some 6,000 years ago."
  • "Western Australia and Northern Territory" ---> "Western Australia and the Northern Territory" — I've very rarely heard the latter term used without the definite article.
  • Link requiem shark in the "Description" section, since you haven't yet used that term outside the lead.
  • "potentially dangerous to humans though" ---> "potentially dangerous to humans, though" — Comma use.

Other than that, prose, references, and everything else looks good. Very comprehensive, and a fine article overall. Good work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made edits as you recommended. Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Taxonomy caption shouldn't end in period
  • File:Carcharhinus_amboinensis_distmap.png: what base map did you use to create this?
  • File:Carcharhinus_amboinensis_Day.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made edits as per comments. -- Yzx (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason in Distribution and habitat why some countries and Cape Verde are unlinked and others such as South Africa are?
Well, I used to link all place names, but then in past FA reviews that's been pointed out as overlinking, so I stopped linking country names, and then I got a comment above about adding some links, so actually I've got no idea what people want for this. -- Yzx (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I generally leave it at states or provinces of countries and anything smaller than that. But also some concepts such as Southeast Asia I think are useful. Yes it has been tricky navigating this over the years. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I think I'd link Cape Verde and unlink South Africa - the islands mentioned are not well known by many and are valuable links. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Young sharks live in the bay year-round, staying mostly in the eastern side of the bay ... - be good if we can lose one of the 'bay's - but not sure if we can without introducing ambiguity.....
Removed the second instance of "bay"; I think it's still clear. -- Yzx (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The natural mortality for juveniles in Cleveland Bay ... - is the "natural" necessary?
I think so, to make clear that it doesn't include human-caused mortality. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by Cwmhiraeth This appears to be a well-written and comprehensive article and the only thing that bothered me was the use of the term "fisheries" in the lead. The Wikipedia article states "According to the FAO, a fishery is typically defined in terms of the "people involved, species or type of fish, area of water or seabed, method of fishing, class of boats, purpose of the activities or a combination of the foregoing features"". So what fisheries are involved in catching Pigeye shark?Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain what the issue is. Do you think that the use of "fisheries" in the intro is not specific enough, or that it's a misapplication of the word? -- Yzx (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fish can be caught by longlines, or by trawling or drag-netting but not by fisheries. Then again, it is apparent from the body of the article that this species is uncommon, and it seems unlikely that there is a pigeye shark fishery as such, let alone more than one. By the way, I notice that gillets is incorrectly linked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Gillnet" fixed. -- Yzx (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "fishery" is also used to refer to an industry for catching fish, or the people who work in said industry, as defined here. So in that sense, a shark can be caught by a fishery. -- Yzx (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal. It just sounded wrong to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I use this wording quite frequently. I think I'll wait to see if others object to it. -- Yzx (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Very little to nitpick about this excellent article, but just a few remarks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about this, but I'm going to query the variety of English again. Many BE-English-speaking countries in the range, no US-speaking
As a note, I think the Philippines use American English except for commas. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the text to BE. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • presently lacks the data— lacks adequate data?
Changed. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • closely resembles the bull shark, morphology-based phylogenetic studies have considered the two species to be closely related—avoid repeat of "closely"
Switched the first use to "strongly resembles". -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • >3.1:1 versus ≤3.1:1—might be clearer if you write the more than/less than in words
I've tried it before, but I found the "less than or equal to" cumbersome. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • tapeworms Callitetrarhynchus gracilis— I'd be inclined to just put "several tapeworms", and not bother with the lengthy list of red-links (this is a personal aversion, so feel free to ignore. I'm uptight enough to write stubs for my parasites, but I don't expect anyone else to do it)
I think it's worthwhile information. Maybe the red links will inspire some reticent parasitologist at some point. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • its flesh can cause ciguatera poisoning. — Does the toxin affect the shark?
It does not and it's not clear why. I don't know that this needs to be in the article though, since it's a basic aspect of ciguatera. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the responses, and I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. -- Yzx (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sasata (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look fine. Sasata (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Müller & Henle (1939) is available here
  • page # for Garrick (1982)?
  • De Maddalena & Della Rovere is available here; Muller in the title needs a ü
  • Cliff & Dudley (1991) is issue #1; Muller in the title needs a ü
  • Campbell & Beveridge 1987 available here
  • Palm & Beveridge (2002) is here
  • why isn't the volume# bolded in Knip et al. (2012) (ref #23)?
  • might consider coverting all isbns to isbn 13, as recommended by WP:ISBN. A handy converter is available here

Couple of comments (unrelated to sources):

  • The taxonomy section says that "Later authors reassigned it to the genus Carcharhinus.", but according to the taxobox synonymy, it was moved by the original authors in the same year originally published? Also, why both "J. P. Müller" and "Müller" as authority abbreviations?
Sorry, I misread. Do we know who made the later transfer and when? Sasata (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think to dig this out would require much original research on my part. There may not be a single person responsible anyway; generic transfers are often a process of authors here and there doing it in publications until it becomes widely accepted. -- Yzx (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If "Müller" is the official author abbreviation, then yes please. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pigeye_shark/archive1&oldid=1046369523"