Talk:Tiger shark/GA1

GA nomination

This is close to GA quality, but not quite there yet. The article reads well, but occasionally has a non-encyclopedic tone. "as it flirts with the equator throughout the colder months." or "The attack is a brutal confrontation". There are also rather few references in the text and multiple unsupported statements. More images would also be a bonus, but not essential. TimVickers 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with the above comments - let me amplify them a little. (1) Remove unencyclopedic language that sounds like a 7th grade book report (2) A full body image in the water would be appropriate where the teeth image is located now (Move that one down into the Diet Template. Teeth/Diet sort of goes together). There are a lot of images on the worldwide web of Tiger sharks attacking albatross chicks at French Frigate Shoals (in the northwest Hawaiian Chain). A full-body shot of one of these would be perfect. (3) Go back through the text again and add references to unsourced statements like we did getting Oceanic whitetip ready for FA status.--Hokeman 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I would suggest moving the second paragraph in the Diet template which starts out, "The shark is known to be aggressive..." down into the Dangers template. Also I recommend moving the photo of the teeth down adjacent to where it talks about teeth at the bottom of the anatomy template. Right above it let's think about putting a full body photo of a tiger shark in the water because the first paragraph in the anatomy template talks about the gross anatomy.--Hokeman 04:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? OK

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? OK

Additional comments :

• Please fix this image's tag.

Fixed. Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Having a reference for the paragraph that starts with Its teeth are flat, triangular, notched and serrated... would be really useful to verify the veracity of the fact.

Fixed. Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Same as above for the paragraph Recent information contradicts the notion that the tiger shark ...

Not so easy, I can not find anything, anyone else?? Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will also say that the presence of the word recent in the sentence is not appropriate for WP which tries to be time-independent. Lincher 11:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph adds nothing of value to the article so I've removed it. Yomangani^talk 12:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lincher 15:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

Upon recent revamping of the page in accordance with requested elements mentioned in the above section, the article is now of GA status. Cheers, Lincher 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

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

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 14, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

I am reviewing this article as part of the GA sweep, which helps to ensure that all articles tagged and listed as Good articles meet the GA criteria. The article currently fails to meet 2 criteria. First, sourcing is weak, several citations are need (see comments below), and the coverage needs to be improved. I'll put the article "on hold" for 7 days to allow editors to address these issues. Sasata (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to fix what you have found, but do not think I can make it in 7 days (have way to little time for wikipedia now-a-days, please give a bit more time?) --Stefan ^talk 09:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's no problem at all. In fact, I'll be going on a 3-week leave in less than a week, so I'll check back in mid-June. Sasata (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• There are several statements to which I've added cite-tags. Many of them because they contain weasel-statements ("...is known to be", "...is considered to be", "... is regarded as..."), others are statements that simply need backing up with reliable sources.
• There are two unsourced paragraphs in the "Anatomy and appearance" section
• The distribution section should be beefed up, currently the section only mentions the extremes of its distribution without stating in what locales this species is most likely to be found. For example, a quick web search reveals that this species is common in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, surely that should be mentioned here.
• How long before the young shark reaches sexual maturity?
• Any info on behavior and social structure?
• The References section is really thin for a GA, and I suspect there's a lot of research in scholarly publications that hasn't been mentioned here. For example, there's evidence that dugongs trade food for safety from tiger sharks - an interesting behavior which certainly deserves a mention. How about a study that tracks the long-term movement of the sharks? A recent (2007) study on reproductive behavior would be great for extending the Reproduction section. I'm sure the readers would like to know about this kind of information, and it would greatly enhance the article.
• The "In popular culture" section is largely unsourced and does little to add value to the article. Please add citations, change from list to prose format, or consider removing the section altogether. See Wikipedia:Trivia_sections

From the lead section, paragraph 4: "The tiger shark is second only to the great white shark, coming close to the bull shark in number of recorded attacks on humans". What does this mean?

The section "Distribution and habitat" would benefir from more references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How's the progress? I'd like to finish this review... Sasata (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad, have been busy with other stuff and I forgot, will try to do something in the next 2-3 days, but no promises :-) --Stefan ^talk 00:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I question whether http://ladywildlife.com/animals/tigershark.html can be considered a reliable source. It seems to be a personal website. It is the only place I can find such statements as "The ability to pick up low-frequency pressure waves enables the shark to advance towards an animal with confidence, even in the environment of murky water where it is often found." —Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to delist this article from GA status for the reasons given above. Anyone is welcome to resubmit for GAN after the article has been brought up to standard. Sasata (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I will see what I can do in this regard. Though, I am now attempting to improve this article with reliable references. The improvement process may take some time. --LeGenD (talk) 12:40, 04 May 2010 (UTC)