Talk:Prickly shark/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 09:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
- "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)
- Because the IUCN template puts the site name in italics, so I figured that was supposed to be the case for websites.
- Is that standard formatting for an unpublished thesis?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)