Talk:Crocodile shark/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll be reviewing this article. Will probably be done in a couple of days, maybe sooner. Sasata (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments/questions/suggestions

Lede

• "The crocodile shark is the smallest living mackerel shark, measuring only 1 m (3 ft) long, and can be distinguished by its long body..." It seems somewhat contradictory to say that this is the smallest shark of this type, but it can be recognized by its long body.

• Changed to "elongated body"

• suggest relinking "pelagic fishes" to the more direct pelagic fishes

• Done

• "caught in some numbers" sounds idiomatic, perhaps rephrase

• Changed to "substantial numbers"

• "... found worldwide in tropical waters." I think this should be expanded to at least a full sentence, as there's a whole section devoted to distribution in the article.

• Not sure; this is the gist of the species distribution, while the distribution section covers the specific occurrence data that led to it. I don't think it's necessary to get into that in the intro

Ok. Sasata (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• "This species was notably responsible..." Remove "notably" (the readers can decide notability for themselves)

• Done

Taxonomy and phylogeny

• unlink English, crocodile, teeth - these are all common words, and I doubt any reader will click on these for further information to help them understand this article. I'm also iffy on Japanese and Japan, but I suppose there are arguments for leaving those ones linked... I let you decide.

• Left them in for now

• "The crocodile shark was first described in 1936 as Carcharias kamoharai by ichthyologist Kiyomatsu Matsubara," any chance of citing to the original source this species was described from? Never mind, found it in my surfing, you can just drop it in

• Done

• "... from a 73.5 cm (29 in) specimen found at..." specify that it's length

• Done

• "A phylogenetic analysis based on mitochondrial DNA, conducted by Naylor et al. in 1997," I don't see the reference for this paper (and it should be there)

• Done

• link Ma

• Done

Distribution and habitat

• More places: this shark has also been found in the Bonapart Seamount west of Saint Helena Island (South Atlantic), 960 km off the coast of Baja, Mexico, New Zealand, off Peru, and off northern Chile. This may mean the range map has to be modified.

• I've changed the distribution section to be more detailed (from Compagno 2002) and incorporated the more recent refs from above into it. I think the map is still fine.

Biology and ecology

• "...and descends into deeper water during the day to avoid predators..." But in the next paragraph, it says that this shark is not known to be preyed upon by other species?

• Removed line about avoiding predators; it's true for many other migrating species but possibly not this one. Still, just because there are no known predators doesn't mean it doesn't have predators, period.

• "The gestation period is unknown but believed to be long." A statement like this needs to be cited, else it sounds weaselly

• That entire section comes from Fujita 1981, including speculation on the gestation period, the ref is at the end of the section

• What's the lifespan? Also, the length at which they become mature is mentioned (I'm assuming that mature = reproductive capacity), how long does this take?

• As far as I am aware there is no aging data available for this species

• I think it should be mentioned that this species is electroreceptive, because that's pretty cool

• Hmm, not sure about this, as all cartilaginous fishes are electroreceptive, and there isn't a study specifically about electroreception in this species

Ah ok, didn't know that. Just saw the fact while browsing the refs and thought it would be interesting to include. Sasata (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've addressed the points listed; let me know if there are more issues. -- Yzx (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominator has implemented suggested changes, or provided logical rationale for not making them. Article meets GA criteria. Thanks for another nice contribution! Sasata (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is well-written; article complies with MOS.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Well-referenced to reliable sources.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage is good.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

   All images have appropriate free use licenses.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: