Talk:Shark/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

Kept--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notified:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sharks, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, Chris huh (talk · contribs), Stefan (talk · contribs), Yomangani (talk · contribs), Fluri (talk · contribs), Janderk (talk · contribs), TexMurphy (talk · contribs), EVula (talk · contribs), Madeleine Price Ball (talk · contribs), Wisdom89 (talk · contribs), Mbz1 (talk · contribs), Lfstevens (talk · contribs), Figma (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. The article is currently at risk of losing its WP:GA-class rating. In order to adhere to the current criteria the following issues will need to be addressed:
  • One left, can find video but not text, will keep searching. --Stefan talk 02:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fixed, one ref is weak but it is the best I can find. --Stefan talk 03:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated before no more dead links! --Stefan talk 04:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an article of this length the WP:LEAD seems to be quite short. I could probably stand to have about three paragraphs that are as long as the current first one.
  • Lead is reorganized and contains no one sentence paragraph, but is still a bit short.--Stefan talk 04:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has many entire paragraphs and that are entirely void of citations from any WP:RS. This is unsatisfactory. There are many extremely interesting facts that a reader, especially a young student will need to WP:ATT and WP:V.
  • Added a lot of refs, not 100% but good enough?? --Stefan talk 02:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good effort. It has come a long way. However, it needs at least one ref per paragraph, IMO. In many cases one-line paragraphs should be merged or expanded with properly cited content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added references to the taxonomy section. --Stefan talk 04:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Address Citation needed templates.
  • Do not understand, what needs to be done? --Stefan talk 02:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that was a bit to obvious, I was thinking something much more complex, sorry :-) --Stefan talk 00:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Sharks in Hawaiian mythology" section needs to be converted to prose and properly cited.
  • Same for the "Life history" section
  • It is expanded in the three sections below, so I did merge it, I rather have it in the format that it was before, but if you prefer this, I'm OK with it. Although I would like to find a MOS section that talks about this kind of details of how to structure text (I have not tried to search). --Stefan talk 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add WP:ALT text to the images
  • What needs to be done? To me the link shows text for all items?? Do you by info box mean taxobox?? If so nothing can be done to it, it is transcluded to so many pages that it can only be edited by admins and I suggest that you take your issues to its talk page, if there is a argument that is not filled in in the tamplate use, please explain in more detail what is wrong. --Stefan talk 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First I would review Wikipedia:ALT#Essence. Something like "Photo of part of a tiger shark jaw and teeth" should say "Photo of serrated teeth" You are suppose to write what you would say over the phone to describe the picture to the average wikipedia reader. No one knows what tiger shark jaw looks like so those words would be wasted. If I looked at a picture, I would not recognize "Photo of dozens of grey fossilized teeth" I would see photo of dozens of black pointed objects.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt text is still very technical. Imagine describing the images over the phone to someone who is not a shark expert. "Photo of part of a tiger shark jaw and teeth" should be something like "four hooked and serreted teeth within an open jaw". An expert might identify an egg case, but few would. Describe what a blind person who does not know sharks should envision. Also, although most know what a great white looks like most do not have an image of a Grey reef shark in their mind.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:CAPTION#Wording, especially as it relates to the placement of periods.
  • I am a bit confused where sharks fit in the bigger picture. I expected to see more categories to help the reader. Also, is it common for templates such as {{Chondrichthyes}} not to have any common names in parenthesis?
  • Tried to find examples of simmilar articles with more categories, but all I find have very few, see e.g. primates FA and only one. As for the template, not sure but should be handled in the template, many does not have any good common names, but some do for sure. --Stefan talk 10:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the two hatnotes be combined into a single-line hatnote?
  • There is no template for that, but can be done without template if that is required?? --Stefan talk 02:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, done, learned something new today, thanks. --Stefan talk 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several sections or subsection and paragraphs are extremely short, and the article could be improved if expanded or merged.
  • Make sure all refs follow a punctuation with no spaces between.
  • Specific text issues
  • Agreement: the tissue is still called bones.
  • How so: Shark bones function in the same way that human bones do.
  • Link: gums, one of the types of cold-blooded animals
  • Do not understand, what? where?? --Stefan talk 12:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The teeth of sharks are embedded in the gums rather..."
  • Ungrammatical appositive: A small subset of constantly swimming species, a behavior common in pelagic sharks, have lost the ability to pump water through their gills.
  • I will monitor the progress of this article. I may have additional suggestions. I will reconsider the class rating of this article after seven days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did the easy one, and cleaned up the disambiguation links, as of this version. Neil916 (Talk) 07:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added image ALT tags to the article. Neil916 (Talk) 08:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been progress in the last ten days. I am apt to delist, but will check back in a few days to see if editors are still interested in addressing the listed concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern is now mostly on cleaning up the WP:ALT text and a couple minor text issues. Is there a reason you have not linked gums and cold-blooded?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cold-blooded links to a disambigue page that lists poikilothermic, I think it is better the way it is now than to link cold blooded to poikilothermic? No reson for gums, except that I thought it was more importaint to do other fixes (like reference and I have not had much time). Will do gums now. --Stefan talk 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I don't know what cold-blooded means. What am I suppose to do? Please link or expand text in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that the text "Most sharks are "cold-blooded", or more precisely poikilothermic" would give you the idea that poikilothermic is a more precise description of cold-blooded and that you would click that link if you wanted to know more about it, but I have now linked cold-blooded to the 'disambig' page (it is not really a disambig page, but close, it have no info, only links). I think that someone will come along and fix the 'disambig' link to poikilothermic, and remove the direct link since it is now duplicated and the end result will be only a link for cold-blooded linking to poikilothermic, and that is NOT how I think we should link, but if this is what you think it better, fine. --Stefan talk 05:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have delinked the dab page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Stefan talk 05:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue now is the alt text. Items like egg case and fossilized teeth would not be recognizable. Don't describe them as such describe what a non-expert sees. Also, photo of a sign is insufficient.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, as for ALT text for the sign, the actual text of the picture will also be visible, so the text "A sign warning about the presence of sharks in Salt Rock, South Africa" will also be read, I do not think that text should be duplicated and together they should be enough? Or do you really expect the whole sign to be in the ALT text? As for how to describe the egg case, sorry not sure I can do that. I will make a try for the fossilized teeth. --Stefan talk 05:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the egg case goes, think of the purpose of WP:ALT text. What will a visually impaired person be able to understand when using a screen reader on the alt text. Saying an image is an egg case leaves them wondering is this a golden egg, a purple pouch, a brown cacoon, or what. Describe what you see as if you understand they can not see it and are relying on your description. That is how all alt text should be written. You see shapes and colors and context. Describe them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what to do, I'm just struggeling to actually do it :-), made a try of it. --Stefan talk 10:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks O.K. now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shark/GA1&oldid=314087205"