![]() | Sand tiger shark was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was intensively edited as a Fall 2011 / Spring 2012
educational assignment:
WikiProject AP Biology 2011. We invite you to join us to make further improvements and changes. We are not claiming any sort of ownership. This is a project in collaboration. |
An article on the Eastern Grey Nurse Shark in the Life supplement of The Guardian, from 17th February, records the gestation period as about twelve months, but also points out that no one is quite sure how long it takes. Chenxlee 16:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know the article does say 'Sand Tiger' as another name, but wouldn't this be better kept under Sand Tiger than 'Grey Nurse'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.31.148 ( talk) 03:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. You're saying we call it Sand Tiger Shark but the article is at Grey Nurse Shark. Shouldn't it be moved to Sand Tiger? -- 67.162.31.148 ( talk) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Jesus, you clearly have no clue what you're saying. First you say that fishbase calls it a sand tiger (which it does) , and then you turn right around and say fishbase calls it a grey nurse (which it does not). The article is incorrectly titled and sand tiger should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.15.202 ( talk) 17:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fishbase seems to refer to it as the Sand Tiger Shark on my computer though. I don't understand, has fishbase changed the name since that's what fishbase uses? I'm so confused... -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 01:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
To add to this confusion there's a separate article for Sand Shark which appears to be the same species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.50.134 ( talk) 16:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The article now also claims that "Grey Nurse" is commonly used in the UK, which it is not. It has always been the Sand Tiger Shark. A potential source for this misconception could be that when Nintendo localised the game Endless Ocean 2 for Europe, they used the Australian translation because both regions use the PAL format, assuming they would be interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.96.230 ( talk) 00:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Discovery channel sources put Odontaspis as the genus for this shark, rather than charcharias. Is this simply a difference in opinion or a change in taxonomy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.74.232 ( talk) 05:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This article should be under Sand tiger shark rather than grey nurse according to the fishbase rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.219.5.241 ( talk) 10:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I think it should not evem be a shark
Ragged tooth shark redirects to Smalltooth sand tiger yet it should merged with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlackersHammer ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I dispute the claims that the shark is "not aggressive unless provoked." The international shark attack file has instances of unprovoked attacks, including fatal attacks. In South Africa, especially in the "raggie" has a reputation for being aggressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 ( talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I formatted the reference section and it is set up for books if you use any. However, the original citations are all over the place. Many are just web addresses. You will need to insert the "cite web template", then follow the actual link to complete the required information. This will take time. If you are not comfortable with the web resources that were there, then delete the citation and attempt to cite the info from another source. There is a section I called Additional reading which consist of random web links not in the actual text. Either use them - thus moving them under references or delete them completely.-- JimmyButler ( talk) 03:15, 22 October 2011
Okay, I will work on all of the original citations this weekend. Some of them are not legitimate, so I'll probably end up deleting those. All of the rest of the useful sources I will convert. Also, the reason why I added the external links/additional reading area is to keep the sources at hand for future use just to save time. I will delete them now and bookmark the sites instead on my computer. Thank you so much for the help, I was going to ask you about the unformatted sources on Monday. This saves me a lot of time. -- UND77 ( talk) 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The range map is very good. The range description is very uneven in detail. Three particular sightings for Canada and a very sweeping statement for the Pacific ocean. I think it would be a good idea to describe the map. There is a limited number of coastlines marked. The source of the map could then be the source cited for the text. -- Ettrig ( talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions, I will get on that right away! -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 00:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Done, but how do I place them throughout the article? They keep drifting to the left side...-- UND77 ( talk) 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Will do, thank you so much. -- UND77 ( talk) 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC) -- Ettrig ( talk) 10:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I will take care of your list as soon as possible. -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 13:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what do you suggest I do to improve the International common names section? Should I just delete it altogether? -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 03:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make sure to always call it the Sand tiger shark! -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 13:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Very few comments remain for processing now! -- Ettrig ( talk) 14:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes! I am proud of the work we have done on this article...With just a little bit more content added, we will be looking at some peer review! -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 00:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the article Smalltooth sand tiger can be an inspiration to this article. It is GA. It is about one of the other three species in the family. It might have citations of sources that are also relevant to this species. -- Ettrig ( talk) 17:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Perfect! This is extremely useful. Thanks!-- UND77 ( talk) 03:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
References
"You" state: (feeding in surf zone) has caused many instances of accidental attacks upon humans. . This is not documented in the reference you cite; it fact it contradicts your reference which actually states: Despite this, they are a docile, non-aggressive species, known to attack humans only when bothered first. ---> From National Geographic reference.I will attempt a teacher review soon - you are behind the Greater Scaup. -- JimmyButler ( talk) 03:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Rather than build my own portfolio; I'll request that you give it a once through and remove any words or phrasing that only increase word count, without increasing accuracy or clarity. I'll check back when you've indicated "done".-- JimmyButler ( talk) 20:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
General
Taxonomy
Description
Diet and Behaviour
Habitat and range
Reproduction
Conservation status
Hope this is useful. This is a relatively well-studied species with a lot of data to sort through. -- Yzx ( talk) 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for responding. This is a fantastic help. I will try to sort through these suggestions, and get them done. If any questions arise, I will be sure to ask them. Hopefully, this article can become a true success. Thanks again! -- UND77 ( talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This is awesome! Thank you thank you! -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 02:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The lead is suppose to be a summary of the article. References are not required in the lead(unless the material is contentious) but go into the body of the article. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
A few observations so far, more to follow:
Hi!
Saw that this article was part of a school project, though I should give some suggestions.
-- Stefan talk 02:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for recognizing that! Any review or suggestion is extremely useful. This is great! Thanks again! -- UND77 ( talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe worth keep a check on nervous shark, it's a recent good article nominee. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 00:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is really an issue, but in some places you refer to it as a Sand tiger, and in others it's the Sand tiger shark. I'm not doing an animal article, so I'm not sure the rule behind this, but I suspect it might just be an issue of consistency? I just thought I'd bring this up. If it is a problem, it would just be a simple fix. Phorofor ( talk) 19:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
As far as the sand tiger's location in the water column, it roams... Conversational dialog not expedient enough for my taste. Four students in the group, one of you please read through this thing and remove the words that contribute nothing to the understanding of this topic... we are not trying to reach a "word count" for a class paper. Errrrrr....-- JimmyButler ( talk) 00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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. String Theory 11 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. String Theory 11 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
These are the only recurring problems I see. I will look at the sections in more detail later. String Theory 11 05:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
This is all I notice for this section. I will do the next later. String Theory 11 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've been looking in on this and I should note that the section still has inaccuracies:
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)
These are the only problems in this section. The rest will come soon. String Theory 11 19:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
String Theory 11 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
String Theory 11 20:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC).
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)
String Theory 11 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
String Theory 11 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
String Theory 11 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure; I will check it out. Thank you.-- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 20:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The reproduction section is a mess and needs attention. It is stated that they have one of the lowest reproduction rates and yet the reasons for this are not adequately explained.
1. "During early embryonic stages the young absorb nutrients from a yolk sac"
The initial number of young is not given. It is as many as 40 between the two uteri. I have seen one source say 40 in each uterus, but most state the former and it appears to be more accurate.
2. "At approximately 10 centimeters (4 in) in length, developing embryos in the mother's uteri are killed and devoured by two surviving pups, a process called intrauterine cannibalism (oophagy)."
Using "killed" is unnecessary and humanizes the biological process. In fact, "killed and devoured" is a melodramatic statement that is completely inappropriate for a zoological article, as is the term "mother." It is also poorly explained; no reason for this behavior is given. In addition, the phrase "by two surviving pups" is both inconsistent (they are referred to as embryos in the former part of the sentence) and vague. It suggests that these two are somehow either preselected or farther developmentally advanced than the others. In reality it is more of a "free for all," with the strongest and most aggressive embryo in the uterus being the survivor.
At two months of age (which likely coincides with 4 inches of length) the individual yolk sacks of the embryos run out and they must utilize the only other food source available to keep themselves from starving. The embryos begin consuming one another and continue until only the largest and strongest embryo in each uterus is left.
3. "There are reports of biologists probing the bellies of landed females and having their fingers nipped by the cannibalistic young with their fully developed teeth"
Irrelevant to the reproduction of this species.
4. "Hydroids grow on the mother's teeth during pregnancy because she stops feeding"
Somewhat interesting but also irrelevant. Needs to be either tied in to the section or removed, not tacked on to the end as an afterthought. Most people will not know what hydroids are, let alone the significance of them growing on a shark's teeth, so it should probably just be removed. If it can be tied in it also needs to be stated in a less simplistic manner and without using the anthropomorphized term "mother."
It is worth noting that the primary source listed for reproductive data is thirty years old; positively ancient by scientific standards.
There has also been an interesting development in the last few years by Australian researchers attempting to breed the species that may be a relevant addition to the Conservation section. They have attempted to create an "artificial uterus" utilizing a system with different chambers to rear the young separately from one another, preventing cannibalism and yielding a higher number of offspring.
I don't know if anyone is still working on this article as it looks like the last activity was a year ago. I will check back and can make changes if no one else is active.
CrisisRose (
talk)
01:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
In diet, benthic is referenced as "free swimming". I think that pelagic is a more accurate term. I know my students have moved on, is anyone vested in this article at present? -- JimmyButler ( talk) 05:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A long series of edits by user:Jwhferguson (hasn't been active on wiki for a long time) resulted in removals of fairly large sections from the article. Some changes were fine, but other removals seem questionable, especially in the "Description" section. I don't have the time at present, but it might be worth checking if it is worth saving some of it. 62.107.193.67 ( talk) 03:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sand tiger shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The top of the article states that the last sighting of the sand tiger shark in the Mediterranean Sea was in 2003, but has no citations since October 2021. Later in the article, it's said that it's present in the Mediterranean, with no allusion to its presumed(?) extinction. The range map is from 2005, but does depict ranges near several mediterranean countries.
Is it or is it not currently present in the Mediterranean sea? This
[1] aquarium in 2023 seems to think it is.
151.67.212.58 (
talk)
10:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Sand tiger shark was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was intensively edited as a Fall 2011 / Spring 2012
educational assignment:
WikiProject AP Biology 2011. We invite you to join us to make further improvements and changes. We are not claiming any sort of ownership. This is a project in collaboration. |
An article on the Eastern Grey Nurse Shark in the Life supplement of The Guardian, from 17th February, records the gestation period as about twelve months, but also points out that no one is quite sure how long it takes. Chenxlee 16:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know the article does say 'Sand Tiger' as another name, but wouldn't this be better kept under Sand Tiger than 'Grey Nurse'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.31.148 ( talk) 03:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. You're saying we call it Sand Tiger Shark but the article is at Grey Nurse Shark. Shouldn't it be moved to Sand Tiger? -- 67.162.31.148 ( talk) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Jesus, you clearly have no clue what you're saying. First you say that fishbase calls it a sand tiger (which it does) , and then you turn right around and say fishbase calls it a grey nurse (which it does not). The article is incorrectly titled and sand tiger should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.15.202 ( talk) 17:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fishbase seems to refer to it as the Sand Tiger Shark on my computer though. I don't understand, has fishbase changed the name since that's what fishbase uses? I'm so confused... -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 01:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
To add to this confusion there's a separate article for Sand Shark which appears to be the same species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.50.134 ( talk) 16:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The article now also claims that "Grey Nurse" is commonly used in the UK, which it is not. It has always been the Sand Tiger Shark. A potential source for this misconception could be that when Nintendo localised the game Endless Ocean 2 for Europe, they used the Australian translation because both regions use the PAL format, assuming they would be interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.96.230 ( talk) 00:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Discovery channel sources put Odontaspis as the genus for this shark, rather than charcharias. Is this simply a difference in opinion or a change in taxonomy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.74.232 ( talk) 05:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This article should be under Sand tiger shark rather than grey nurse according to the fishbase rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.219.5.241 ( talk) 10:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I think it should not evem be a shark
Ragged tooth shark redirects to Smalltooth sand tiger yet it should merged with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlackersHammer ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I dispute the claims that the shark is "not aggressive unless provoked." The international shark attack file has instances of unprovoked attacks, including fatal attacks. In South Africa, especially in the "raggie" has a reputation for being aggressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 ( talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I formatted the reference section and it is set up for books if you use any. However, the original citations are all over the place. Many are just web addresses. You will need to insert the "cite web template", then follow the actual link to complete the required information. This will take time. If you are not comfortable with the web resources that were there, then delete the citation and attempt to cite the info from another source. There is a section I called Additional reading which consist of random web links not in the actual text. Either use them - thus moving them under references or delete them completely.-- JimmyButler ( talk) 03:15, 22 October 2011
Okay, I will work on all of the original citations this weekend. Some of them are not legitimate, so I'll probably end up deleting those. All of the rest of the useful sources I will convert. Also, the reason why I added the external links/additional reading area is to keep the sources at hand for future use just to save time. I will delete them now and bookmark the sites instead on my computer. Thank you so much for the help, I was going to ask you about the unformatted sources on Monday. This saves me a lot of time. -- UND77 ( talk) 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The range map is very good. The range description is very uneven in detail. Three particular sightings for Canada and a very sweeping statement for the Pacific ocean. I think it would be a good idea to describe the map. There is a limited number of coastlines marked. The source of the map could then be the source cited for the text. -- Ettrig ( talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions, I will get on that right away! -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 00:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Done, but how do I place them throughout the article? They keep drifting to the left side...-- UND77 ( talk) 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Will do, thank you so much. -- UND77 ( talk) 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC) -- Ettrig ( talk) 10:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I will take care of your list as soon as possible. -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 13:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what do you suggest I do to improve the International common names section? Should I just delete it altogether? -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 03:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make sure to always call it the Sand tiger shark! -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 13:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Very few comments remain for processing now! -- Ettrig ( talk) 14:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes! I am proud of the work we have done on this article...With just a little bit more content added, we will be looking at some peer review! -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 00:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the article Smalltooth sand tiger can be an inspiration to this article. It is GA. It is about one of the other three species in the family. It might have citations of sources that are also relevant to this species. -- Ettrig ( talk) 17:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Perfect! This is extremely useful. Thanks!-- UND77 ( talk) 03:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
References
"You" state: (feeding in surf zone) has caused many instances of accidental attacks upon humans. . This is not documented in the reference you cite; it fact it contradicts your reference which actually states: Despite this, they are a docile, non-aggressive species, known to attack humans only when bothered first. ---> From National Geographic reference.I will attempt a teacher review soon - you are behind the Greater Scaup. -- JimmyButler ( talk) 03:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Rather than build my own portfolio; I'll request that you give it a once through and remove any words or phrasing that only increase word count, without increasing accuracy or clarity. I'll check back when you've indicated "done".-- JimmyButler ( talk) 20:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
General
Taxonomy
Description
Diet and Behaviour
Habitat and range
Reproduction
Conservation status
Hope this is useful. This is a relatively well-studied species with a lot of data to sort through. -- Yzx ( talk) 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for responding. This is a fantastic help. I will try to sort through these suggestions, and get them done. If any questions arise, I will be sure to ask them. Hopefully, this article can become a true success. Thanks again! -- UND77 ( talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This is awesome! Thank you thank you! -- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 02:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The lead is suppose to be a summary of the article. References are not required in the lead(unless the material is contentious) but go into the body of the article. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
A few observations so far, more to follow:
Hi!
Saw that this article was part of a school project, though I should give some suggestions.
-- Stefan talk 02:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for recognizing that! Any review or suggestion is extremely useful. This is great! Thanks again! -- UND77 ( talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe worth keep a check on nervous shark, it's a recent good article nominee. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 00:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is really an issue, but in some places you refer to it as a Sand tiger, and in others it's the Sand tiger shark. I'm not doing an animal article, so I'm not sure the rule behind this, but I suspect it might just be an issue of consistency? I just thought I'd bring this up. If it is a problem, it would just be a simple fix. Phorofor ( talk) 19:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
As far as the sand tiger's location in the water column, it roams... Conversational dialog not expedient enough for my taste. Four students in the group, one of you please read through this thing and remove the words that contribute nothing to the understanding of this topic... we are not trying to reach a "word count" for a class paper. Errrrrr....-- JimmyButler ( talk) 00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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. String Theory 11 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. String Theory 11 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
These are the only recurring problems I see. I will look at the sections in more detail later. String Theory 11 05:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
This is all I notice for this section. I will do the next later. String Theory 11 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've been looking in on this and I should note that the section still has inaccuracies:
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)
These are the only problems in this section. The rest will come soon. String Theory 11 19:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
String Theory 11 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
String Theory 11 20:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC).
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)
String Theory 11 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
String Theory 11 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
String Theory 11 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure; I will check it out. Thank you.-- Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet ( talk) 20:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The reproduction section is a mess and needs attention. It is stated that they have one of the lowest reproduction rates and yet the reasons for this are not adequately explained.
1. "During early embryonic stages the young absorb nutrients from a yolk sac"
The initial number of young is not given. It is as many as 40 between the two uteri. I have seen one source say 40 in each uterus, but most state the former and it appears to be more accurate.
2. "At approximately 10 centimeters (4 in) in length, developing embryos in the mother's uteri are killed and devoured by two surviving pups, a process called intrauterine cannibalism (oophagy)."
Using "killed" is unnecessary and humanizes the biological process. In fact, "killed and devoured" is a melodramatic statement that is completely inappropriate for a zoological article, as is the term "mother." It is also poorly explained; no reason for this behavior is given. In addition, the phrase "by two surviving pups" is both inconsistent (they are referred to as embryos in the former part of the sentence) and vague. It suggests that these two are somehow either preselected or farther developmentally advanced than the others. In reality it is more of a "free for all," with the strongest and most aggressive embryo in the uterus being the survivor.
At two months of age (which likely coincides with 4 inches of length) the individual yolk sacks of the embryos run out and they must utilize the only other food source available to keep themselves from starving. The embryos begin consuming one another and continue until only the largest and strongest embryo in each uterus is left.
3. "There are reports of biologists probing the bellies of landed females and having their fingers nipped by the cannibalistic young with their fully developed teeth"
Irrelevant to the reproduction of this species.
4. "Hydroids grow on the mother's teeth during pregnancy because she stops feeding"
Somewhat interesting but also irrelevant. Needs to be either tied in to the section or removed, not tacked on to the end as an afterthought. Most people will not know what hydroids are, let alone the significance of them growing on a shark's teeth, so it should probably just be removed. If it can be tied in it also needs to be stated in a less simplistic manner and without using the anthropomorphized term "mother."
It is worth noting that the primary source listed for reproductive data is thirty years old; positively ancient by scientific standards.
There has also been an interesting development in the last few years by Australian researchers attempting to breed the species that may be a relevant addition to the Conservation section. They have attempted to create an "artificial uterus" utilizing a system with different chambers to rear the young separately from one another, preventing cannibalism and yielding a higher number of offspring.
I don't know if anyone is still working on this article as it looks like the last activity was a year ago. I will check back and can make changes if no one else is active.
CrisisRose (
talk)
01:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
In diet, benthic is referenced as "free swimming". I think that pelagic is a more accurate term. I know my students have moved on, is anyone vested in this article at present? -- JimmyButler ( talk) 05:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A long series of edits by user:Jwhferguson (hasn't been active on wiki for a long time) resulted in removals of fairly large sections from the article. Some changes were fine, but other removals seem questionable, especially in the "Description" section. I don't have the time at present, but it might be worth checking if it is worth saving some of it. 62.107.193.67 ( talk) 03:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sand tiger shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The top of the article states that the last sighting of the sand tiger shark in the Mediterranean Sea was in 2003, but has no citations since October 2021. Later in the article, it's said that it's present in the Mediterranean, with no allusion to its presumed(?) extinction. The range map is from 2005, but does depict ranges near several mediterranean countries.
Is it or is it not currently present in the Mediterranean sea? This
[1] aquarium in 2023 seems to think it is.
151.67.212.58 (
talk)
10:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)