User talk:Zoezentner/sandbox

Overall, I think that you have a good amount of information on the dogfish. Honestly, most of the edits I have are just grammatical things, like a random capitalized word or a typo. For example, in dist. and habitat, summer is capitalized; in reproduction, it should read 4.5 to 14 years; and in tonic immobility, you have "limb" instead of limp.

When referring to the shark, feel free to use the common names more often, especially since there are so many of them. I would recommend using these names in the appearance section, as reading "they" repeatedly distracted me from the information. Then again, that could just be me. Also, you could abbreviate the scientific name (after the first time you used it) to M. canis. This is more just personal preference though.

I think it would be good to put a brief summary paragraph in the beginning of the article to introduce the dogfish (This seems to be the format of most Wikipedia articles I've seen).

The original article does contain some info you don't have, like a larger description of their diet, and the little tidbit about them being the first sharks known to have viral infections.

My final suggestion would be to link to other articles. Especially in the reproduction section, it would be helpful for those who aren't familiar with scientific terms like "oocytes" to be able to learn more about them.

Once again, overall good job! I know it probably seems like a lot of comments, but it's mostly just wording and grammar stuff. The content is definitely there! Sespry13 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the organization of the article is good. I noticed that there isn't a citation under the anatomy and appearance section. A suggestion I have is that some of the shorter sentences can be combined in that section. Also, I believe there shouldn't be a space in between the period and citation number. One tip would be to link some of the scientific words like "oceanodromous" to another wikipedia page for other users to look up. Perhaps include a See Also section at the end for related species. 2 more citations are needed to have at least 10 sources. Nice content! Ocean.Melody (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Realized I put this in the wrong place so I copied it over here to make it easier to find...

Looks like you did a good job updating the page, it seems the headings fit in well with the template in the packet we got today. I would add a lead section back in with just a brief description of the animal and then an important fact or two. And this is strictly personal preference as everyone seems to have their own style for these pages but I would move the 'Dentition' heading into the 'Anatomy and appearance', maybe as a subheading. Similarly you could move the 'Diet' heading into the 'Distribution and Habitat' as a subheading. You could also add a bit about their blunt teeth being used for the food they eat in the Diet section, though it may make more sense to keep them all separate as you did. Other than that it looks really good, I have only been comparing yours to the page for the great white shark that has a whole lot more info but it seems like you have hit all the major topics for your species so I would change a few of the structural items if you feel like it. Phhutchi (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)phhutchi[reply]