# Talk:Japanese angelshark

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.  -- ascidian | talk-to-me 13:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese angelshark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I will review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"is a species of angel shark, family Squatinidae" Seems jargony, add "of the family Squatinidae"?
I don't like using the "of the family" here because that makes it sound like "Squatinidae" is a category within "angel shark", rather than that they're synonymous.
Is there perhaps another, less formal, way to phrase it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I prefer to have "family Squatinidae" in the intro (since I refer to the family elsewhere in the article), and I don't think the 'noun, synonym,' construction is all that unusual? -- Yzx (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"Japanese angelshark diverged from the rest of the Asian angelshark lineage" Japanese angelshark lineage perhaps? The species hardly remained unchanged for 100 million years.
Changed.
"It is a bottom-dwelling shark found over sand" Sounds a bit odd, can it be rephrased? Inhabiting sand covered ocean floors, or soem such?
Changed to "found in sandy habitats"
"Litters of two to ten pups" isn't the word "pup" reserved for mammals?
Newborn sharks and rays have always been called pups, as far as I know.
Alright. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, not any more to add, nice images, sources and all, so I'll pass. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm a bit unfamiliar with the way articles work for species but I didn't see a lot of citations. Is that normal or is that a problem? I just wanted to ask here before doing something. Sausage Slayer's Alt (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)