Talk:Prickly shark

Prickly shark 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 4, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Sharks Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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:Prickly shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 09:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review to follow soon. As ever, seeing as I review a lot of yours, feel free to ask me to leave them be for a time. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"it can be found close to the bottom, or to the walls if inside a canyon" Awkward phrasing

Split into two sentences.

"ReefQuest Centre for Shark Research" Why italics?

Because the IUCN template puts the site name in italics, so I figured that was supposed to be the case for websites.

That's an awkward issue, because the MoS is unclear. I follow the rule which, to me, is obvious; italicise newspaper/magazine/whatever, don't italicise websites. We wouldn't italicise "Wikipedia" or "Wikimedia Commons". This is made more difficult by the ridiculous "work" parameter in cite web, but it's not the end of the world. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that standard formatting for an unpublished thesis?

Adjusted slightly to match formatting with journal articles.

File:Echinorhinus cookei 4.jpg seems to be from an uploader who has uploaded a rather wide variety of images as their "own work", but, lacking any evidence to the contrary, I think we can take them on their word in this case. File:Echinorhinus cookei 4.jpg also seems to lack much by way of sourcing- even if it was created by the uploader, on what was it based? However, the uploader does seem to be a savvy individual. Neither of these are a massive deal, but they do set off some (very quiet) alarm bells.

Most of their images do seem to be from a common museum source, so agreed that they could be the uploader's real work.

Another great article. I made a couple of modifications- revert if need be. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. Promoting now- great work, as ever. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]