Talk:Portuguese dogfish/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, let's start

• Absorption, Decapod and Quota are dabs

• Fixed

• images and maps OK
• Links missing for full on-line text for many of your references. Here's one, the very first I checked, selected at random from the list Catch analysis and productivity of the deepwater dogfish resource in southern Australia.

• It is my understanding that furnishing online text links for academic sources is not mandated for any article.

• 1-29 looks odd, up to 29 maybe?

• Changed

• Taxonomy - what are its closest relatives. Is the Mediterranean form a different subspecies?

• No phylogenetic studies of this shark have been done, nor have any subspecies been designated (the use of this taxonomic category is not widespread in sharks)

• Is there any difference in appearance other than size for the two sexes?

• As in all cartilaginous fishes, males can be identified by having claspers. I don't bother stating this explicitly though, just like every mammal article doesn't mention that males have a penis in the description.

• The Portuguese dogfish has more acute vision... isn't this sentence "Description"?

• The acuity of an eye is a physiological attribute, not a descriptive one.

• It is mainly valued for its liver, which contains 22–49% squalene What is the liver used for - is it eaten? What's the significance of the high squalene content?

• It's mainly used in health foods/cosmetics for its vitamin content, though some people think it has other beneficial properties as well.

I think that's all for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left my responses; let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly of GA standard, and I'll pass it as such. Two points to consider

• I didn't know that males can be identified by having claspers, and I suspect most non-specialists wouldn't. I think it would be useful to add that
• It may not be mandatory to add links to full text and pdfs, but it seems perverse to deliberately chose to make life more more difficult for readers wishing to access your references. It's not as if adding urls as you go along requires much effort. Personally I don't bother with links for abstracts, but I'd always link full articles. Still, it's your call

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]