Talk:Caribbean reef shark

Caribbean reef shark 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 24, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sharks Mid‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It appears to be an adequate article on the subject. I have just a few comments.

Comments

There is overlinking in the article. (See WP:MoS#Overlinking.) Common words such as fish, jaws (which needs disambiguation anyway), shrimps, crabs, tooth and other words that a reader of English can be expected to know do not wikilinking unless the linked article adds information that enlarges the meaning of the article. If an article is wikilinked, like fisheries, diver etc., only wikilink it at the first mention.

Removed a couple

At one point the article says the species is "abundant", but at another place it is listed as a near threatened species. This seems contradictory.

"Locally abundant" is the phrase used by the IUCN assessment; I've qualified it as such

The number of 22 attacks does not have a date. Needs an "as of".

Done (and updated)

When a book is referenced, a page number should be given in the footnote.

Done

Otherwise, the article is clearly written, and nicely formatted. The pictures are wonderful. A good job!

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've addressed your points. -- Yzx (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK. Great. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Yes b (focused): Yese
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Nice, clearly presented article. Congratulations

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic