# Talk:Whitetip reef shark

This review is transcluded from Talk:Whitetip reef shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Should be done in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Another well-written shark article. I wish I could offer more suggestions to improve it, but it looks like you've covered the bases thoroughly. A couple of minor points:

Fix dab to respiration
The big word parturition might benefit from wikilinking (although the resulting article is annoyingly human-centric) or wiktionary-linking
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Prose is well-written; article complies with MOS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR): 
Well-referenced to reliable sources. I source-checked some online refs and all was good.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Coverage is comparable to other GA shark articles.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

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):
All images have appropriate free use licenses.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

About [1]: The template is here to be used. The scientific name of the Oceanic white tip shark is one click apart and perfectly irrelevant for this article. I intend to revert again. --KnightMove (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I nothing about these sharks beyond what I've just read here, but I'm inclined to think that this line was inserted as a joke: "spear fishers are at risk of being bitten by one attempting to steal their catch." Isn't it the spear fisher's catch that is at risk of being eaten?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.204.197 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC) 

Spear fishers can (and have) get bitten accidentally by sharks trying to steal the fish they've caught. -- Yzx (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the fact that this species is absent from the Atlantic is not interesting or notable. The Indo-Pacific and the Atlantic are completely separate biogeographic regions and hundreds of thousands of species follow the distribution pattern seen here. It is not at all unusual, and any explanation does not belong on an article about a single one of these species. -- Yzx (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Right - where is an explanation of the Indo-Pacific and Atlantic distributions of "hundreds of thousands of species" to be found? Paul venter (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it should be in the article about the Indo-Pacific, or maybe it should be mentioned in the biogeography article. Whatever the case, it doesn't belong in an article about a single species when it's a fact that applies to thousands. But tell you what, find me a reference that talks about why the whitetip reef shark specifically is absent from the Atlantic Ocean, and I'll put it in. Since you insist that this is important enough for inclusion in this particular article, my request should pose no difficulty. -- Yzx (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, you've lost me with that logic - for example: A movie produced in Hollywood shouldn't mention that fact because tens of thousands of other movies are also produced in Hollywood. And by the same reasoning the shark's occurrence in the Indo-Pacific shouldn't be mentioned, because there are many other species of sharks occurring in the Indo-Pacific. Really?? Beware WP:OWN!!  Paul venter (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Triaenodon_obesus/ Paul venter (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the logic is that there are tons of facts that don't belong in Wikipedia because they're not important -- for example, lions are not found in Australia, but this doesn't belong on Wikipedia because it's not important or useful. Every fact important enough to go on Wikipedia should have appeared in a reliable source at some point. But you did provide a source (though I'm going to replace it with this one, which is better), so I consider the subject closed. Good job. -- Yzx (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Good - I was beginning to find this tedious. Paul venter (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

23 68.71.22.212 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)