Talk:Silky shark/GA1
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)
- "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.
- "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.
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).
- 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.
- 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?
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.
- The conservation material is alarming. Any more data from anywhere else? If not, that's fine.
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)
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)