# Talk:Whiskery 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) 04:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Whiskery shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I know you're not the biggest fan of categorisation, but... Category:Monotypic animal genera? Category:Animals described in 1943? Category:Fish of Australia?
I added the third one. I just don't see the point of the first two at all. What is the encyclopedic value of knowing which animals were described in 1943? That's a completely arbitrary piece of information. You might as well have a Category:Animals with names starting with W.
If you feel that the categories are useless then, I implore you, nominate them for deletion. In the mean time, I think it's best to use them on articles where they are appropriate; inconsistency doesn't help anyone. I've added them myself. J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"Other common names for the whiskery include Mack's whiskery shark, reef shark, shakey shark, and sundowner." Mention that it's in addition to "whiskery shark".
Fixed missing word.
Maybe it's different in zoology, but are you certain that citation is accurate? The name Furgaleus wasn't used until 1951, but you date the citation as 1943
The species was described in 1943 as Fur macki. The current genus name wasn't coined until 1951.
Do we know what the genus/species names mean?
I don't have access to Whitley's original publication. It might stay a mystery anyway since Whitley had a habit of giving things odd names and not saying why.
"There 24–32 upper and 36–42 lower tooth rows" Doesn't make sense
Fixed missing word.
"oblique with smaller cusplets to the trailing side of the main cusp, while the lower teeth are upright and lack cusplets" Very jargony
Rephrased
The plural of "octopus" is octopuses, occasionally octopi, or, in British English, octopodes (according to the Oxford English Dictionary
Changed
"deeper water or other unfished habitat" habitats? another habitat?
Changed to "habitats"
"it is targeted by a shark fishery operating off Western Australia." Does it have a name?
Added
"Fisheries Western Australia" What is this? Worthy of a redlink?
Changed to the "Western Australian government"; the name of the particular management agency isn't important
"has not been" was not? Or is the season not over?
Changed to "was not"
File:Furgaleus macki distmap.png could do with a link to the base map
Added
Very nice. Well written, covers all the bases. Sources are appropriate, illustrations are solid. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking good; I'm happy to promote. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)