Talk:Porbeagle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 15:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading the article now... Ucucha 15:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Etymology. The OED gives a more nuanced account of its etymology, which is probably more accurate. I can e-mail you the piece if you like.

That'd be helpful. Thanks.

• Please e-mail me (Special:Emailuser/Ucucha) and I'll reply with the piece.

Can you provide the full citation for the passage? -- Yzx (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Something like this:

• "porbeagle". Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required). Oxford University Press, draft revision June 2008. Retrieved February 25, 2010.

Ucucha 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Info added; I've preserved the two existing proposed etymologies as they're the most common ones I've encountered, even if inaccurate. -- Yzx (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• What is the age of the Chilean fossils (in connection with the colonization of the Southern Hemisphere)?

Split up the sites by their ages; the age of the Chilean fossils may be consistent with the ice age colonization theory, but the paleobiogeography of this genus is not yet concretely understood

• "In the eastern North Pacific," - they are not supposed to be there, are they?

Fixed

• "The porbeagle may attain a length of 3.7 m (12 ft), though this is uncertain and a more typical length is 2.5 m (8.2 ft)." - perhaps expand a little on what the doubtful 3.7 m record is based on.

Added a bit; size records, particularly older ones, for both Lamna species tend to suffer from misidentifications

• "The dissected reproductive system of an adult male shark, with parts labeled|The dissected reproductive system of an adult female shark, with parts labeled" (alt text). This is not adequate alt text; it should describe the images rather than merely duplicate the caption (alt text is not a GA criterion, but if you include it, you'd as well make it as good as possible).

Expanded

Ucucha 16:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As in the previous article of yours I reviewed, there may be a few issues with unexplained jargon. Perhaps you can have a look through the article, and otherwise I'll list some. Ucucha 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Added some parenthetical terms. -- Yzx (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Couple more unexplained terms in lead: peduncle, aplacental viviparous, oophagous (unexplained technical terms should be avoided especially in the lead, as it serves as a general introduction). Elsewhere: parturition.

Rephrased some

• "The porbeagle has four rete mirabile systems: the orbital retia accessing its brain and eyes, the lateral cutaneous retia accessing its swimming muscles, the suprahepatic rete accessing its viscera, and the kidney rete." - that sounds like there are five, not four.

How so?

One to the brain and eyes, one to the viscera, one to the kidney, at least two lateral ones. Ucucha 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the sources I've read, the lateral retia has been considered a single system although they're paired, maybe because they're the same type. I can remove the number. -- Yzx (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that might be the explanation, but think the current text is clearer anyway. Ucucha 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The porbeagle's capacity for elevating body temperature is second only to the salmon shark's." - among sharks or among endothermic animals as a whole?

Clarified

Ucucha 21:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I will now pass the article as a good article. The article seems very comprehensive and generally good; you should consider taking it to featured article candidates. Ucucha 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)