Talk:False catshark

False catshark has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 22, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Sharks Mid‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Andrew Gray (talk · contribs) 16:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Thoroughly cited and no apparent OR. Sources all look trustworthy.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Contains all the key topics. All content is relevant to the topic.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No obvious signs of POV.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
All looks good since the major expansion.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images and captions all look good.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Some specific comments:

Pseudotriakis is false-Triakis; but catsharks are Scyliorhinidae. So how did this become known as the false catshark rather than, say, the false houndshark?

At the time, Triakis was classified in the catshark family. I've added a sentence about this. -- Yzx (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth including commons:File:Pseudotriakis acrales by jordan and snyder.jpg somewhere? A line drawing is often easier to understand than a photograph, especially for something as drab-coloured as this species.

Image added. -- Yzx (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~FishBase and the IUCN both appear in the references section. Do they need to be duplicated in external links as well~~

Is this policy? I didn't think the external links section had anything to do with references. -- Yzx (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what policy is, to be honest; it just feels a bit strange to me :-). I'll leave it up to whatever your normal practice is. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more:

"The dermal denticles are shaped like arrowheads with a central ridge, and are sparsely on the skin." - not quite sure what this is trying to say. They're sparsely distributed?

Yes that's what I meant. The word was missing. -- Yzx (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In Okinawa, its oil is traditionally used to seal the hulls of wooden fishing boats." - the article generally implies that this shark isn't caught very frequently, and that it's only caught by accident. If there's a specific traditional use, does this imply it's more commonly caught in Okinawa?

The source doesn't go into any more detail on that, so I can't say. -- Yzx (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I think that's about it! I've made some small changes to prose to (IMO) make it read a bit smoother, but feel free to change them back if you object. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me. Passing. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on False catshark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627094911/http://www.iucnredlist.org/ to http://www.iucnredlist.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upholstery reference?

Might one enquire as to why this particular fish is characterised as a "sofa" shark? The article includes no such exposition, and the reason is not obvious to me. Laodah 05:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]