# Talk:Pyjama 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) 00:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pyjama shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"The pyjama shark is the larger and thicker-bodied member of the genus, growing to 1.1 m (3.6 ft) long and 7.9 kg (17 lb) or more in weight." This sentence confuses me, as what is it larger and thicker-bodied than?
Changed to "...thicker-bodied of the two Poroderma species"
Gurnard needs disambiguation.
Done.
Too bad, no picture.
Xtzou (Talk) 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Everything looks good, though I am not a specialist in the field. I do understand and enjoy most of the article.  Xtzou (Talk) 14:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:  Clearly written and concise

B. MoS compliance:  Complies with basic  MoS

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:  Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  Well referenced

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:  Sets the context

B. Focused:  Remains focused on the topic

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass! 

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 14:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

From the beginning of the last paragraph:
//The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed the pyjama shark as least concern, citing its small distribution and a recent increase in fishing pressure on small sharks in the region.//
That doesn't make sense as it stands: things aren't generally listed least concern on the basis of the things which might put them at risk!
FloweringOctopus (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that was badly phrased. Reformulated it acc to source. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks.  Have also changed a sentence on the same subject in the introduction to match that change.  :-)
FloweringOctopus (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)