Talk:Sicklefin weasel shark/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, long time since I reviewed one of your articles, so here goes. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy section seems devoid of any info on classification. At least the intro mentions the family.

The taxonomy section mentions who classified it in its genus and when. I tend to think higher-level classifications should be the purview of the taxobox unless there's something especially noteworthy. Don't see much purpose to duplicating what's already present.

Is there a reason why we need to know the full name of the journal, not to mention full translation of it?

What's the harm of including the information?

I would make the case that duplicating classification info and elaborating on it (taxonomic history, synonyms, closest relatives, DNA work, etc) is way more important for this article than duplicating a journal name, which is already spelled out in full under references. FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you insist I've removed the journal name. I still believe that the taxonomic section has sufficient detail on classification. There's no phylogenetic data at the species level, and anything about Hemigaleus or higher I firmly believe should be on the respective pages of those groups, not on a species-level article. -- Yzx (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but is there no explanation for the two synonyms in the taxobox? FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some information on them. -- Yzx (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the species of octopus shown specifically part of the diet? Then why not mention the name in the caption?

No, it's just a generic Indonesian octopus for illustrative purposes.

This image[1] shows the underside of the shark, any reason why it isn't used?

I've added it as a second taxobox image.

"Males mature sexually at around 74–75 cm (29.1–29.5 in) long" No word on what age that may be?

There's no age data as far as I know.

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, with tbe new clarifications, I think it's ready to pass! FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]