Talk:Night shark/GA1

GA Review

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

Given the prompt and easy fixes on the last shark GA nominee, I will begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No type specimen has been designated for this species. - now, that's interesting. A bonus point for an explanation :)

Don't know. My guess is that the original material Poey was working from didn't constitute a type specimen, but there hasn't been enough taxonomic confusion surrounding this species for anybody to bother designating a lectotype later on.

The pectoral fins are less than a fifth as long as the total body length.. - this statement struck me as odd - is there a significance in this WRT shark species?

Well, it was just a more precise way of saying "not that long", which could be diagnostic depending on what species you're comparing it to.

Potential predators of the night shark include larger sharks - worth listing any?

Not to my knowledge.

I would have added latin and greek terms but can't place my dictionaries. Hypo = "under", prion = saw in greek, and signatus is Latin but I'd need to check my dictionary for which meaning helps most. A more specific reference relevant to shark's be good too.

signatus means "signed", but I didn't include it because there's no reference directly connecting Poey's name with the meaning, so I thought I'd err on the safe side of OR. Also I haven't the slightest clue what Poey could've been referring to with that.

Again, another well-polished article...actually I will use one of these:

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - consider the above bonus peer-review-type comments for FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the OR issue is frustrating sometimes when you sorta know why some fact is such but no-one has bothered writing it up. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)