Talk:Nursehound

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.

For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter, here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nursehound/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have a few comments, mainly about the use of the passive voice (so disliked by WP:WEASEL):

• "This species was later moved to the genus Scyliorhinus." - Passive voice, who moved it?

• Info added

• "he common name "nursehound" came from the belief that this shark attends to its smaller relatives," - again, the passive voice. Who had this belief?

• Info added

• "The nursehound has been reported from a depth of 1–125 m (3.3–410 ft)," - This sounds like someone went to a depth of 1–125 m (3.3–410 ft) and reported it. A problem with the passive voice. Must be clear what the subject is.

• Changed

• "This species is less common than the small-spotted catshark." - Should wikilink it again here for the reader.

• Done

• "Human interactions" - since this section is relatively large, I think it should be reflected in the lede. Also, the fact is is eaten by humans.

• Expanded that part of the intro

• Although not required by GA, you could add alt text for visually disabled readers.

• Done

• I reworded a little - "reproductive mode" didn't sound right to me. Hope that is OK.
• Just curious, how did you decide to name this article, given the shark is known by several common names?

• Most fish articles on Wikipedia use the primary common name given by FishBase, unless there's a compelling reason not to.

Otherwise, all looks good. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed the issues; let me know of any others. -- Yzx (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): References are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers major aspect b (focused): Remains focues

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

Good work!

—Mattisse (Talk) 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)