Talk:Pacific angelshark

Pacific angelshark has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 25, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 24, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that at night, the Pacific angelshark (pictured) may use bioluminescent plankton to target its prey?

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sharks Mid‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources 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.

For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter, here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. Sasata (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Just a comment: I reviewed it, since you do not have your name under it on GAN, and find it an excellent article! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

I agree with Matisse: this is another fine article, typical of the output of Yzx. I did a minor copyedit, mostly adding links, and doing some MOS tweaks. I will pass the article, and leave a few suggestions that might be useful. Sasata (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This bottom-dwelling shark prefers flat, soft substrates close to shore," what does substrates mean in this context?
"A number of genetically discrete subpopulations" I'm iffy about piping "genetically" to DNA, surely there must be a better link?
"where gillnet "pangas" targeting this species" what's a panga?
saw this recent article that might go in somewhere:

Title: Food habits of the Pacific angel shark Squatina californica in the southern Gulf of California, Mexico. Author(s): Escobar-Sanchez, Ofelia; Abitia-Cardenas, L. Andres; Galvan-Magana, Felipe Source: Cybium Volume: 30 Issue: 4 Pages: 91-97 Published: 31 janvier 2007

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is well-written; article complies with MOS.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
Well-referenced to reliable sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Coverage is broad , comparable to other GA shark articles.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: