Talk:Viper dogfish

Copyright problem removed

This article was based on the corresponding article at fishbase.org or niwascience.co.naz, neither of which are compatibly licensed for Wikipedia. It has been revised on this date as part of a large-scale project to remove infringement from these sources. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion and the cleanup task force subpage.) Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 10:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Before we start, a bit of advice: If there's a message on your GA candidae's talk page saying there's a copyright violation, it's a good idea to note that the problem is no longer relevant. (And, as the message is four years old in this case, it might be worth archiving it - though given this talk page isn't used much, I can see why you wouldn't do that.)

However, I did a quick comparison of the revisios from the copyright violation page and the current, and there are happily no issues, so, initial worries aside, this review can carry on to a rather more pleasant conclusion.

Now, I do have some issues with this article. I don't think they're quite enough to deny it good article status, but I would strongly encourage fixing these.

1. "Feeding mainly on bony fishes" - the vast majority of fish are bony fishes, so it's not quite clear what the specificity is meant to imply. If what's meant is that it feeds mostly on bony fishes, with the occasional cartilaginous fish, say that, but if it eats things like cephalopods and such, then a lot more clarity should be added.

"Mainly" means that its diet consists mainly of bony fishes. I don't really see the difference between that and "mostly". -- Yzx (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm more asking whether "bony" is significant there; specifying "mainly bony fishes" can mean that its diet also includes non-bony fishes (e.g. cartilaginous), or it can mean that it mainly consists of bony fishes, with other sea life in general as the secondary foodstuff. Perhaps I'm overthinking this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1. On the subject of the second paragraph of the lead: it's a bit unfocused. Rearranging the lead into more coherent, flowing paragraphs would vastly improve its readability. Also, the statement that there is insufficient data to evaluate conservation status should probably remain there or be discussed in the article body, not the lead.

The lead's supposed to summarize the article, so that's what I did. Also, the IUCN status is discussed in the article body. -- Yzx (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

True, but it could help to rearrange the text a bit, and be a little bit more selective. (Also, I did notice the IUCN status in the article body after I said that, but apparently failed to correct my error completely. Oops. My basic point, though, is that it's in an infobox right next to the lead, so it's not strictly necessary to mention it again if it doesn't add much.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The phylogeny and evolution section takes a while to get to the point. It's rather strange to find discussion of the division of a family into clades in an article on a species. The reasoning for this is eventually made clear, but leading off with something like "The position of Trigonognathus within Etmopteridae is unclear." the section gains focus. In fact, I'm going to add that now.

I think that's an improvement, thanks. -- Yzx (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a picture, but for rare sea animals only discovered in the late 80s, that's far less of a problem than it would be in an article on a readily-accessible species.

So, on the whole, pass, but with caveats. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)