Talk:Nursehound/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have a few comments, mainly about the use of the passive voice (so disliked by WP:WEASEL):

• "This species was later moved to the genus Scyliorhinus." - Passive voice, who moved it?

• Info added

• "he common name "nursehound" came from the belief that this shark attends to its smaller relatives," - again, the passive voice. Who had this belief?

• Info added

• "The nursehound has been reported from a depth of 1–125 m (3.3–410 ft)," - This sounds like someone went to a depth of 1–125 m (3.3–410 ft) and reported it. A problem with the passive voice. Must be clear what the subject is.

• Changed

• "This species is less common than the small-spotted catshark." - Should wikilink it again here for the reader.

• Done

• "Human interactions" - since this section is relatively large, I think it should be reflected in the lede. Also, the fact is is eaten by humans.

• Expanded that part of the intro

• Although not required by GA, you could add alt text for visually disabled readers.

• Done

• I reworded a little - "reproductive mode" didn't sound right to me. Hope that is OK.
• Just curious, how did you decide to name this article, given the shark is known by several common names?

• Most fish articles on Wikipedia use the primary common name given by FishBase, unless there's a compelling reason not to.

Otherwise, all looks good. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed the issues; let me know of any others. -- Yzx (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): References are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers major aspect b (focused): Remains focues

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

Good work!

—Mattisse (Talk) 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)