# Talk:Sicklefin weasel shark

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) 06:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sicklefin weasel shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, long time since I reviewed one of your articles, so here goes. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The taxonomy section seems devoid of any info on classification. At least the intro mentions the family.
The taxonomy section mentions who classified it in its genus and when. I tend to think higher-level classifications should be the purview of the taxobox unless there's something especially noteworthy. Don't see much purpose to duplicating what's already present.
Is there a reason why we need to know the full name of the journal, not to mention full translation of it?
What's the harm of including the information?
I would make the case that duplicating classification info and elaborating on it (taxonomic history, synonyms, closest relatives, DNA work, etc) is way more important for this article than duplicating a journal name, which is already spelled out in full under references. FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, since you insist I've removed the journal name. I still believe that the taxonomic section has sufficient detail on classification. There's no phylogenetic data at the species level, and anything about Hemigaleus or higher I firmly believe should be on the respective pages of those groups, not on a species-level article. -- Yzx (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Alright, but is there no explanation for the two synonyms in the taxobox? FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added some information on them. -- Yzx (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Is the species of octopus shown specifically part of the diet? Then why not mention the name in the caption?
No, it's just a generic Indonesian octopus for illustrative purposes.
This image[1] shows the underside of the shark, any reason why it isn't used?
I've added it as a second taxobox image.
"Males mature sexually at around 74–75 cm (29.1–29.5 in) long" No word on what age that may be?
There's no age data as far as I know.
Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, with tbe new clarifications, I think it's ready to pass! FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)