# Talk:Coral catshark

This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources 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.
For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter,  here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you.  --– Sadalmelik ☎ 08:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The lede originally said "Its length is up to 70 cm. About 27.6 inches."  Apart from the bad sentance structure, this looked like someone had taken an approximate metric value and converted it to an unreasonably precise Imperial one.  However, I checked the reference and it gives the metric value to three significant figures (70.0cm), so I have updated the lede to show this.  That said, a maximum length that comes to a nice round number of millimetres looks somewhat suspicious to me, so it might be worthwhile if an expert on catsharks checks the appropriate literature to see if a less precise lenght would be more appropriate). Wardog (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coral catshark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk • contribs • count) 21:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps worth mentioning the second common name in the lead?
It doesn't seem to be used very much; at least none of the sources I've looked at use it
"two at a time on the bottom, that hatch after 4–6 months" Awkward
Rephrased a bit
"Another common name for this species is marbled catshark.[7]" Rather than being tacked on the end of the section, this could be tied to the fact that the specific name means "marbled"
Moved sentence
"may rest together. Individual sharks may" Repetition
Rephrased
"The female deposits the eggs on the bottom, rather than attaching them to vertical structures." So they just sit on the floor? Not buried, not attached, not anything? Are they eaten by other animals?
Yes they just lie on the bottom, some eggs don't even have tendrils that can be used to attach to things. This data comes from aquarium observations so there's no info on predators
"home aquariums" aquaria?
It's my understanding that both are acceptable
"Vulnerable" dablink
Fixed
"Anonymous [Bennett, E.T.] (1830). "Class Pisces". Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles. pp. 686–694." Publisher? Is there one? Also, be consistent as to whether you give publisher locations
There's no publisher given where I've seen it cited elsewhere in papers and such
Removed location from the one ref
The sourcing on File:Cat shark.jpg is a little questionable. Also, I don't think the current lead image is as good as the one in the prose.
Agreed the source on that file seems a bit dodgy, but I don't have evidence that it comes from somewhere else, and it's valuable in that it's the only photo available that was actually taken in the wild
The one in the prose (I assume the second photo?) is of a juvenile; the one in the lead was I thought the best one with a full-body adult
Generally looking great- answers all the questions, well sources, well written. I made a couple of small edits. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking through again, I can't see any issues. A shorter GA review, but the article's looking at GA standard as-is. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)