Talk:Blotchy swellshark

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. --– Sadalmelik ☎ 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll mark Y comments when I think they're resolved, highlight N any that are unresolved when most others are done, and strike out any of comments that I later decide are mistaken. I'll sign each of my comments, so we can see who said what - please do the same.

I'll mark the review {{inuse}} when I'm working on it, as edit conflicts are frustrating. If you think I've forgotten to remove {{inuse}}, please leave a message at my Talk page. Please free to use {{inuse}} with your own signature when you're working.

I'll read the article through first, then give comments. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In lead but not in main article

See WP:LEAD

• Y Genus name Cephaloscyllium. Needs citation in main article. --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Yzx (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y "This species has often been confounded with the draughtsboard shark (C. isabellum) and the Sarawak pygmy swellshark (C. sarawakensis) in scientific literature." Needs citations in main article. --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This sentence refers to the long-standing taxonomic mess surrounding C. umbratile, C. isabellum, and C. sarawakensis (which was only named in 2005). I've added some to the second paragraph of "Taxonomy" to make this clearer. -- Yzx (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I edited to Cephaloscyllium umbratile to avoid any ambiguity at all. If you want to see a real taxonomic mess, look at Phoronid#Taxonomy! --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Coverage

• Y Any fossils of this or other catsharks? Bottom-dwelling sharks may be vulnerable to mudslides, which have been treasure troves in other places and times, e.g. Fossils of the Burgess Shale. --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge this species is not known from the fossil record. -- Yzx (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y Should give a bit about the "family tree", e.g. other swellsharks (species in genus Cephaloscyllium), other genera in family Scyliorhinidae - with shared and distinctive characteristics. I note that Cephaloscyllium#Taxonomy gives a list of swellsharks, with citations. If appropriate, you could show the (part of the) tree as a diagram - see example at Nemertea#Within_Nemertea, but perhaps you'd not need so many levels for this shark's family tree. --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There have been no studies of the intrageneric phylogeny of Cephaloscyllium. I believe that phylogenetic information higher than that (i.e. between catshark genera) doesn't belong in a species-level article and would distract from the article focus. -- Yzx (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. But meantime I read around and WP seems to have a taxonomic mess of its own - it has an article Swellshark with scientific name Cephaloscyllium ventriosum. Since the genus Cephaloscyllium is defined by swelling, article Swellshark seems mis-titled. If someone links blotchy swell shark to Swellshark, there's confusion. Ideally Swellshark should be re-titled - if there is a more distinctive common name. For now, I suggest you make a DAB page that "Swellshark" can refer to genus Cephaloscyllium or species Cephaloscyllium ventriosum. And as your sources vary over calling the genus "swell shark" or "swellshark", so it might be safest to create Swell shark to redirect to the DAB page. --Philcha (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Hmm...I'd rather rely on hatnotes than creating a DAB page for only two articles. Perhaps "swellshark"/"swell shark" should go to Cephaloscyllium and C. ventriosum should be under the scientific name since it has no other other common name. That'll take a move request though. In the meantime I've made sure this article doesn't make any generic references to "swellshark". -- Yzx (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Sometimes WP is a difficulty :-) --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Structure

• In zoology articles I've found a standard structure useful: body structure (size, proportions, other important features); feeding; reproduction and lifecycle; behaviour (incl senses); ecology. How well do you think that would here? --Philcha (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the standard format I've long used for species articles; I like it because I think it's simple and easy to follow. I only split out subsections like "feeding" or "life history" if they're long enough that the whole section needs further structure. -- Yzx (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Let's wait and see how things develop. --Philcha (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• A second thought. I suggest moving "The taxonomy of the blotchy swell shark has a history of confusion" to the top of the section, to warn readers. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

Y Looks OK. --18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Description

• Y You say "has a firm, stout body". I can't see what Schaaf-Da Silva, J.A. and D.A. Ebert (September 8, 2008) say, but . Taxonomy, comparative anatomy and phylogeny of Japanese catsharks, Scyliorhinidae says "soft" (p. 9). Please check. --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Catsharks can be divided into either "firm-bodied" or "soft-bodied" groups, and Cephaloscyllium is the former. I believe Nakaya is referring to the abdomen, which is elastic to allow inflation, but otherwise the shark is firm. I've amended the sentence to reflect this. -- Yzx (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. But "elastic to allow inflation" begs another question (I'm into my 2nd childhood) - does much and in what parts does this shark inflated? E.g. just enough to wedge the body in a crevice or enough to protect internal organs from a predator's teeth. Would a comparison with the well-known pufferfish help? --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That level of anatomical detail isn't available for this species. It's one of those things that not a lot of biology effort goes into. -- Yzx (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        • There are many "things that not a lot of biology effort goes into" :-( -Philcha (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y You say "pectoral fins are large and wide". I can't see what Schaaf-Da Silva, J.A. and D.A. Ebert (September 8, 2008) say, but . Taxonomy, comparative anatomy and phylogeny of Japanese catsharks, Scyliorhinidae says "Pectoral fin moderate in size" (p. 10). Please check. --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed to "moderately large" as a compromise. -- Yzx (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y I suggest "The five pairs of gill slits are short and become progressively smaller posteriorly" should be after "A tiny spiracle closely follows each eye", as both sentences refer to respiration. --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Yzx (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y I suggest "A tiny spiracle closely follows lies behind each eye", as the spiracle doesn't move. --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed. -- Yzx (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've edited to "Behind the spiracle are five pairs of gill slits, which are short and become progressively smaller posteriorly". --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y I suggest "The highly capacious mouth" - or even "very". --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed. -- Yzx (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• N Re "around 59 rows in the upper jaw and 62 rows in the lower", you mean that those rows are inuse at one time, or are some rows waiting as back-ups. --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Tooth rows are counting across the jaw, so the shark has 59 rows of teeth across the upper jaw, each row consisting of a few functional teeth at the front and replacement teeth at the back. -- Yzx (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • So "rows" confused me as I thought it referred to the back-up teeth that sharks use when an active tooth is broken or worn. And do you mean n on either side? How about e.g. "There are around active 59 teeth in each side of the upper jaw and 62 active teeth in each side of the lower jaw. Inside these are replacement teeth"? Unfortunately Shark#Teeth cites Skin of the Teeth, which is about the skin, not about biting. But I'm sure you can easily find a citation for replacement teeth. --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
      • "tooth row" in sharks always refers to across the jaw; the rows you're thinking of are called "series" (i.e. the first few series of teeth are functional). This is standard terminology, so perhaps I should put it in the intro of shark tooth and add a link? And the total is for the whole jaw; if it was for either side I would have wrote that. -- Yzx (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        • For non-specialist readers, I think you should make it clear that the total is for the whole jaw, as dental formulae for mammals and their ancestors count only 1 side at each of top and bottom. --Philcha (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Shark_tooth#Counting needs clarification, as its "rows of teeth run perpendicular to the line of the jaw, ..." suggests to me that "row" means 1 functioning teeth and its back-ups, while File:How_to_count_shark_teeth.png (at full size; the thumb is illegible) says the opposite. At Pictorial Guide to Fossil Shark Teeth (p. 8), Jim Rathbone says "They lay in six or seven parallel rows with the first row being the only function one", which looks clear and concise. Sharks, skates, and rays of the Gulf of Mexico: a field guide by Glenn R. Parsons corroborates this: "In one set of bull shark jaws, I counted about 7 teeth per row in fifty rows." There's plenty more at Google Books searching for "shark teeth row series". --Philcha (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
          • It's true that outside of taxonomic works, that many authors use "rows" to count both parallel and perpendicular to the jaw. But since tooth counts are very much a particularly taxonomic feature, I want to maintain proper terminology. I've clarified the explanation at Shark tooth#Counting some. -- Yzx (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Shark_tooth#Counting is confusing - "a single tooth row includes one or more functional teeth at the front of the jaw, and multiple replacement teeth behind" - so that's re-confused me. Rathbone's "They lay in six or seven parallel rows with the first row being the only function one" is clear, and you should it and work in the numbers. --Philcha (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y IMO "The small teeth have a central cusp flanked by a smaller cusplet on both sides, and number around 59 rows in the upper jaw and 62 rows in the lower jaw" is clumsy. How about e.g. "The teeth are small and each has a smaller cusplet on both sides. There are around ..." --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Rephrased. -- Yzx (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y You say "well-calcified dermal denticles; each denticle has a diamond-shaped crown with three horizontal ridges". I can't see what Schaaf-Da Silva, J.A. and D.A. Ebert (September 8, 2008) say, but . Taxonomy, comparative anatomy and phylogeny of Japanese catsharks, Scyliorhinidae says "Denticles on body large, sparsely distributed" (p 10). --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sentence amended. -- Yzx (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The structure of this section is confused:
  • Each of the 2 paras contains disparate topics: body shape; "face"; teeth; fins; skin; colouration. I know many Wikipedians dislike short paras, but IMO clarity for readers is a higher priority. --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't see the reason for the topics. How about working from most visible (especially colouration, which gives this shark's its name) to least visible? After that, it may be good to combine some of the re-structured paras? --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why it's confused? Overall body shape-head traits-fins (going from front to back)-integument-coloration is more or less the standard format used by all the fish books/taxonomic descriptions I've read. Color goes last because it's the most superficial. -- Yzx (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
      • In species catalogues, authors need to adhere to a standard layout. But we're looking at a WP article about 1 species. In this case the common name comes from the colouration, and is the first feature a reader would see in a book or and aquaria (you say "the blotchy swell shark adapts readily to captivity ..."). --Philcha (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The next features a reader would notice IMO are the fins and tail. The tail fin is wholly below the final part of the skeleton, see File:Cephaloscyllium_umbratile.jpg - does that suggest how this shark moves? --Philcha (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
        • It seems we'll have to disagree on this. To me it makes perfect sense to describe an animal structurally first, starting broadly and then focusing in from the head to the tail, and only afterward talk about integument and coloration. -- Yzx (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
          • If we disagree, there are 2 options: you ask for a 2nd opinion at WP:GAN; or the article fails. --Philcha (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
            • I shall ask for additional opinions. -- Yzx (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am responding to the request for second opinions. I do not find the current order confusing. Head-to-tail seems just as valid an order for presenting the information as outside-to-inside. I might—just my writing style, mind, and not a GA criteria requirement—have split the coloration information into a separate paragraph, but that's just me, and there's nothing wrong with the existing approach. I see no possible justification for failing this article over the order of the sentences in this section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Third opinion: I see nothing wrong with the description section. A clear concise summary in my opinion, I get a clear picture of the size, structure and colouration of the fish. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Ill give in on the structure of the description. --Philcha (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 1 issue not resolved, about clarify rows vs series of teeth. I've asked the nom to working Rathbone's explanation. --Philcha (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Rathbone uses "row" to refer to what taxonomists call "series". This does happen, but including this would only confuse readers on what this article means when it uses "row". -- Yzx (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Biology and ecology

• Y Change "~number" to "about number". --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Yzx (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y You say (prey) "including fast-swimming types that inhabit open water". How does the blotchy swell shark do that? It doesn't look fast, e.g. see the tails of fast sharks at Shark#Speed. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The source doesn't speculate on how those fish got eaten, so I won't either. I agree that it's a mystery how the shark caught them. -- Yzx (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Pity. OK.--Philcha (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y What's the gestation time? You say "thought to be relatively prolific", but, if I understand the article, it contains 2 eggs at a time, and they take 1 yr to hatch. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The eggs take a year to hatch after being laid. The female lays pairs of eggs at probably short intervals, judging by the number of ova in the ovary, for a total of many eggs laid per year. I've changed the section some to make this clearer. -- Yzx (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y How long do blotchy swell sharks live? --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There haven't been any aging studies published that I know of. -- Yzx (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y How does "the growth rate after hatching as -1.24–0.77 mm (−0.05–0.03 in)" mean? Can you phrase it in ways that non-experts can understand? --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Rephrased. -- Yzx (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I should have been more specific. What does the formula "1.24–0.77 mm" mean? (w/o "-")? As a layman, I'd want to know e.g. length and weight at hatchling, time and size to start of sexual maturity, and growth past that time. --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
      • It's not a formula (?) Tanaka measured newly hatched sharks and found that their length changed by -1.24 to 0.77 mm per day. -- Yzx (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        • You mean hatchlings usually grow up to 0.77 mm per day, but on bad days they can decrease 1.24 mm in length? How? And "hatchlings usually grow up to 0.77 mm per day" could be clearer for the layman. --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
          • A few of the hatchlings in the study did show negative growth on some days, and I don't know what happened there (the measurement may be statistically indistinguishable from no growth, i.e. error). It is probably unnecessarily confusing to a lay reader though, so I've changed it to say only "up to 0.77 mm per day". -- Yzx (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Y Does anything prey on this shark? --Philcha (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Almost certainly, but there are no specific references saying what. -- Yzx (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Sigh. --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Human interactions

Y Looks OK. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Images

Y Relevant to the content and seem to have appropriate licences. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not yet done

• N clarify "rows" for general reader --Philcha (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've done my best to explain what they mean. What exactly do you want done? -- Yzx (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• N Dead links and DAB pages --Philcha (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Which are? -- Yzx (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• N lead --Philcha (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've stated my position regarding this below. What specifically do you have issues with? -- Yzx (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead links and DAB pages

I'll check with User:Dispenser/Checklinks and the DAB checker when the content is stable.

Lead

• WP:LEAD allows up to 4 paras without argument, and you should them to make clear different aspects of the subject. --Philcha (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'd order the sub-topics for this article like this: identification (name, colouration, body shape and size, taxonomic confusion); how it makes a living (rocky sea-bottoms, depth, geographic, prey; predators if any, defence); reproduction and lifecycle; human interactions. --Philcha (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it reads poorly now; I've seen plenty of featured articles with the intro structure [paragraph 1] name-distribution-description [paragraph 2+] biology/ecology-human interactions. Habitat I could arguably see being moved close to prey/feeding. I remain opposed to putting coloration before morphology. -- Yzx (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• I can see ways to make the lead a little clearer and more concise for general readers, but will look at that when we've agree on the structure. --Philcha (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion

I've requested additional opinions at WP:GAN regarding our disagreement here. -- Yzx (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I really find the criticism to verge on nit-picking. as far as I can see the article meets the WP:WIAGA criteria adequately. WP:GAN is an intentionally lightweight process, this is not WP:FAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Further, there are no dead links and no dab pages. This article should be promoted now. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, the outstanding point is the need to clarify rows and series of teeth. I've fair knowledge of zoology and I was confused - in fact I didn't know this use of "series" until I asked. In Rathbone, a source already cited in the article, there's a simple explanation and the nom should work it into the article. --Philcha (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It currently says "There are around 59 tooth rows in the upper jaw and 62 tooth rows in the lower jaw." I don't know anything about this, but I guessed the right meaning—and the explanation is wikilinked. I don't see anything about the seven series in the current version of the article, although I think it a reasonable detail to include (FAC would require it), and a reasonable situation for sticking with (and linking) the standard terminology of series.

On the bigger issue, I'm with Jezhotwells: This isn't FAC. We're not looking for perfection. We're looking for a non-embarrassing ("decent") article. IMO the article significantly exceeds the actual GA criteria, and should probably be considered for FAC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Result

This article meets the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, is clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images.

If you've got 2 or more articles through GA reviewers, please try to review as many articles as you have nominated for GA review. --Philcha (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and to everyone else for their input. -- Yzx (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blotchy swellshark. 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/20110722105416/http://rms1.agsearch.agropedia.affrc.go.jp/contents/JASI/pdf/society/37-1965.pdf to http://rms1.agsearch.agropedia.affrc.go.jp/contents/JASI/pdf/society/37-1965.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)