Talk:Thornback guitarfish

Thornback guitarfish 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 16, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"and Charles Henry Gilbert, in an" Lose the comma?
- I don't believe so?
  - Why is it there? It seems to be to split the clauses, but take a look at the linked article- "a comma is generally used to separate a dependent clause from the independent clause if the dependent clause comes first", but that does not apply here. If that were the case, the sentence would read something like "In an 1880 issue of the scientific journal Proceedings of the United States National Museum, the thornback guitarfish was scientifically described by American ichthyologists David Starr Jordan and Charles Henry Gilbert." In that sentence, a comma would be used. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alternatively, you could put the clause "by American ichthyologists David Starr Jordan and Charles Henry Gilbert" in parenthesis by adding a comma after "described", but that wouldn't read that well. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Other common names for" You haven't mentioned any common names yet?~~
- DUH. Yes you have.
"slightly longer than wide" than it is?
- Altered.
"Echinobothrium californiense[8] and the nematode Proleptus acutus" Link? Don't be scared of redlinks!
- OK, links added, though I'd be shocked if they turned blue in the next 5 years. If only redlinks were more attractive.
How long do they live? At what age are they sexually mature?
- No data, to my knowledge
Category:Fish of the Pacific Ocean? (I was also going to link to "fish of the US" type categories, but I think they're for freshwater fish)
- I personally don't like "(blank) of (geographical area)" categories, because I think that information is better presented in a list where it can be organized and sourced. You can add the categories yourself though.
  - I can certainly understand that mentality, but I do feel it's a potentially legitimate category. I have added the category myself. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the references, why is "FishBase" in italics?
- That's a template, so I didn't have anything to do with that. If it's too objectionable I can manually write the ref.
  - Seeing as it's the template, I've just gone ahead and boldly changed the templates that refer to it as FishBase. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looking very nice- the sourcing and images are good, the prose is generally fine, and you seem to cover all the bases with regards to questions about the species. I've made a few fixes to the article myself- do make sure I've got it right :) J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only the comma issue outstanding so, as per my explanation above, I have removed it and I am promoting the article. If you feel my removal improper, I'm sure we can work something out. Nice work, and a worthy addition to your long list of good articles. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here. Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]