Jump to content

Talk:Silky shark/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

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) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis, is...." - as a style issue, I usually put the scientific name in parentheses, as there are usually commas all over the place. Not a big deal though.
I actually find parentheses less aesthetically pleasing than the commas, since I think they disrupt the prose in a way that's distracting in the lead sentence. I'll change it if too many people find it bothersome though.
It is about 50/50 each way I think. Click on any bio article and see. No biggie anyway and a style issue for which there is no consensus really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Taxonomy and phylogeny, it would be nice if there were a statement stating the closest relationships of the shark are unclear (as they appear to be). However, this'd need a source saying that.
The branch of Carcharhinus that the silky shark's in is actually fairly well-resolved compared to the rest of the genus; I've rephrased the paragraph to put emphasis on the later molecular studies, and tried to make clear that Dosay-Akbulut doesn't really contradict Naylor (since the 3 species of the group included in Dosay-Abkulut's study resolved out together).
Reads better now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be four distinct populations of silky sharks inhabiting separate ocean basins worldwide - hmm, I see only three big oceans. Is there some more info on how/what/where the populations are?
Unfortunately I don't have full access to the relevant source, just snippets. I'd guess that the populations are Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Gulf of Mexico, based on life history.
However, they can respond with startling swiftness to any shift in the status quo - odd phrase at the end, "any changes in their immediate environment" or "surroundings" ?
Changed to "immediate surroundings"
It does not frequently come into contact.. --> "It only rarely comes into contact.."
Changed
The conservation material is alarming. Any more data from anywhere else? If not, that's fine.
Well, the IUCN (re)assessment only came out in 2009. Probably hasn't been enough time for more material.

To summarise, much the most polished of shark articles I have seen you write. Well done, and very nearly there. I am being a little nitpicky as I'd like to give this one some extra oomph to propel it towards FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the issues; let me know of any others. -- Yzx (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were no real deal-breakers anyway. This one passes. If you can get the paper with the four populations, that would be a pretty big step towards FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]