Talk:Sand tiger shark/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: StringTheory11 (talk · contribs) 05:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the next article that I will be reviewing after somewhat of an absence from GAN. If you get a chance, I would appreciate it if you helped peer review periodic table at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Periodic_table/archive1. StringTheory¹¹ 05:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my article. I greatly appreciate it. I will try to address all of your concerns as soon as possible. Also, I'll try to check out the periodic table and peer review it. I probably won't get to it by Christmas, but I can definitely look at it after Christmas and New Year's. Thanks again!--UND77 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have placed this article on hold until the problem areas are fixed. After that, I will look at it again to determine if it passes the GA review. Because the nominator has said that they will be away until December 26, I will give longer than the customary seven days. StringTheory¹¹ 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, it is now time to review. StringTheory¹¹ 03:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General

• This article could benefit from more peer-reviewed journal articles as sources. Try to find at least one or two more before this article is passed.
• The image captions seem a bit too minimalistic and could benefit from expansion (e.g. for the snout image, explain what we are seeing, for example "snout of a sand tiger shark, showing small eyes.")

Done--UND77 (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

These are the only recurring problems I see. I will look at the sections in more detail later. StringTheory¹¹ 05:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• The common names section should probably be moved out of this section and into its own level-2 section at the bottom of the article.

Done--UND77 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why does the shark have many common names? Is there a reason that people didn't come up with one name originally when it was discovered?

The shark was found in so many different areas, so those who found it made up their own names. Today, most of those names are still used by the places listed. I used the sand tiger as the main common name because it was the name on FishBase that recurred in multiple places worldwide. But I thought that if I listed the other common names, it would ease any controversy. --UND77 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing the first sentence to something like "Since the shark has been found in many different areas before a name could be standardized, it has many common names" would probably work well. StringTheory¹¹ 05:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please clarify what you mean by "a somewhat unknown classification."
• Please define "ICZN" in the article.

Would listing International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature be enough, or should I state the commission's purpose as well?--UND77 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That should probably be enough. StringTheory¹¹ 05:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Second-to-last and third-to-last sentences in naming process subsection could probably be combined into one.
• How did Compagno play a "key role" in renaming the shark to its current name?

Perhaps change to "successfully advocated" for the classification - if that reflects his role.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is all I notice for this section. I will do the next later. StringTheory¹¹ 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been looking in on this and I should note that the section still has inaccuracies:

• Agassiz's name was Odontaspis cuspidata. Note the "a".

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• O. cuspidata is not a synonym of C. taurus, but is congeneric. Agassiz placed C. taurus in Odontaspis because he thought Carcharias and Odontaspis were synonyms.
• Odontaspis taurus became more frequently used than Carcharias taurus because Odontaspis was more commonly used, especially for fossil species.
• The ICZN first decided in favor of Carcharias (Opinion 47), making Odontaspis a synonym.
• Tucker, White, and Marshall argued in favor of Odontaspis, and the ICZN agreed, giving priority to Odontaspis and making Carcharias a synonym (Opinion 723)
• Compagno re-established Carcharias and Odontaspis as separate genera, which ICZN approved (Opinion 1459)
• Carcharias is from karcharos "jagged" -- it doesn't mean "jagged tooth"; that's what Carcharodon means.

What, then, does the name mean? I am confused!--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• taurus means "bull", but the name doesn't have anything to do with the bull shark.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing in the name means "shallow water"

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Scientific names should always be italicized, not put in quotes.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll need additional sources to support this. At the moment the section has only one reference, which doesn't meed verifiability criteria. -- Yzx (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Description

• Explaining why humans think the shark has its characteristics instead of just explaining what they are would help a whole lot. Not necessary for facts such as length and weight, but, for example, the fact that it has reddish brown spots seems interesting and could use explanation as to why the sharks have them.
• The sentence about the albino specimen should probably get its own paragraph.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

These are the only problems in this section. The rest will come soon. StringTheory¹¹ 19:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Diet

• This whole section could probably be a subsection of behavior.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Last sentence needs a reference.

Done, I just deleted the sentence because I could not find an exact reference. Do I need more information in the diet section?--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not if it's a subsection of behavior. If it weren't, you would need more info, but as a subsection it is OK. You may need more for FAC, but that's not something to come to right now. StringTheory¹¹ 19:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• The whole section seems wordy, and could use a rewrite.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

StringTheory¹¹ 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Behavior

• First sentence needs a ref.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• The whole section should refer to the sharks as either singular or plural, not switch between the two.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• The last sentence should be put in the "interaction with humans" section.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

StringTheory¹¹ 20:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

Habitat and range

• Sentence about Canada needs a ref.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Whole section seems like it was just put together one sentence at a time. It needs to flow more smoothly. I recommend a rewrite.

I rearranged the sentences to improve the flow of the section, but please let me know if you think a more intensive rewrite is in order.--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better now. StringTheory¹¹ 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

StringTheory¹¹ 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reproduction

• Is there a reason why they have a low reproduction rate?
• Why does the female stop feeding?

StringTheory¹¹ 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservation status

• Second and third sentences should be merged.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Explain exactly what "prohibited species" means or link to the appropriate article.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Info about how the shark is prepared for food is not necessary.

Done--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

StringTheory¹¹ 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are refs that are web sites such as "thetelegraph.com.au." in lower case? Shouldn't they be the same pattern (Fish...) as other web site publishers? PumpkinSky talk 03:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure; I will check it out. Thank you.--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)