Talk:Tasselled wobbegong

Tasselled wobbegong 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 19, 2013	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.

Copyright problem removed[edit]

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. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will take on this review. Comments will be added a little later. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good so far. One thing, alternate common names are usually listed in the lead, not in the article, see for example Wolverine.

I don't like doing that unless the alternate common names are comparable in usage to the main one, because I feel that's what's implied when they're in bold in the intro. In this case "tasselled wobbegong" is by far the predominant name used for this species, and the others are rarely seen. -- Yzx (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Other wobbegongs" are sometimes mentioned in the article, but it is never explained what exact clade this word refers to. It appears to be Orectolobidae, so this should be clarified.

I linked the first time it appears and added "(Orectolobidae)". -- Yzx (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from this, I can't find problems, I'm impressed that the article covers so much ground in spite of being rather short. If possible, some of this could maybe be elaborated, but that's for FA. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rest is good, passed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]