Talk:Bramble shark

Bramble 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
March 29, 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 articles
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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review to follow soon. I see prickly shark is also not in a bad state; if you work up Echinorhinus, you may have yourself a nice little good topic here. J Milburn (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"with the first originating behind the pelvic fin origins" awkward
- Rephrased.
Annoyingly, pharynx currently links to human pharynx
- I know. I was astounded that a topic as important to evolutionary biology as pharynx doesn't have an article here. Of course, the human-centric slant is rather systemic across our anatomy articles.
Lifespan is a dablink
- Fixed.
I think the apparent rarity could perhaps be more explicit in the lead- note that there are few records of them/they are rarely encountered? That said, I note that the Marmara paper mentions that it is actually very common in some seas, which could be made clearer. Is this claim disputed elsewhere?
- Added note in lead. The statement in the Marmara paper is a slight mis-paraphrasing; the original statement in Compagno (1984) is "relatively common", meaning that most of the known records have come from the E Atlantic and W Indian Oceans.
I've added a few categories- I know you're not big on the ocean categeories, and after trying to categorise this one, I see why. I've just gone with categories for the three main oceans.

Very hard for me to fault this one- a very good article. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pharynx thing is annoying; I think I'll throw this out to a couple of WikiProjects. Other than that, however, this article seems ready. Nice work, as ever! J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]