Talk:Bigeye sand tiger/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead, Odontaspis was found to be closer to the crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai), suggesting that it and Carcharias should be placed in separate families." But we're yet to see such a separation formally proposed?

It's been talked about, but I've not seen it gain wide acceptance in the literature.

"The corner of the mouth extends to behind the level of the eyes, and the jaws are highly protrusible. There are 34–43 upper and 37–46 lower tooth rows; these include zero to two rows at the upper symphysis (jaw center) and two to four rows at the lower symphysis. Each tooth has a narrow, awl-like central cusp flanked by one cusplet on each side; this contrasts with the smalltooth sand tiger, which has two or three lateral cusplets on each side. In the upper jaw, the large teeth at the front and sides may be separated by one or two small intermediate tooth rows." This passage is a little jargony. I'd like to see some more links/explanations of technical terms.

I've reworded it some and linked cusp (which unfortunately is poor both in name and in content) and tooth row.

"...a short but distinct lower lobe and a long upper lobe bearing a ventral notch near the tip." This, too, is unfriendly to people unfamiliar with the subject matter.

Reworded the sentence.

Presumably, we don't know how long they live? Do you have a source saying that?

We do not; I added a note.

Categories for year of description and distribution? I know you're not a fan, but, while we have them, we may as well be using them.

Added. I left out Indian Ocean since it's not definite.

The sources look fine. The ReefQuest Centre for Shark Research probably isn't ideal, but certainly isn't problematic. Images are solid. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writing's good. Sources look fine

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, happy that this is ready for GA status. J Milburn (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]