Talk:Scalloped hammerhead

message: First of all, you really need to put in different sub-headings under behavior for whatever types of behavior you talk about... it's incredibly daunting looking at that huge chunk of text under the behavior heading. For example, the first chunk should be under the sub-heading "Schooling," the next should possibly be on "Habitat Selection," etc. That will help people be able to find things easier. 
I agree also with "Mr Fink" above, you should change all of the sentences beginning with 'we', it is not encyclopedic. 
"Larger cm" is confusing... are you referring to the larger size? You should clarify this. 
In talking about temperature changes, 'hitchike' is weird wording. You should consider using an alternative to enhance the clarity of the passage. 
When you are talking about the sex ratio, do not make the explanation (male to female ratio) a different sentence, just include it after the raw numbers with a comma in the format 'male:female' ratio. 
Your mention of mating scars needs more explanation, or delete the thought altogether, because it makes no sense where it is now. 
You should put hyperlinks in to clarify complex concepts (such as 'apex predator', 'trophic level,' 'silky shark,' etc. 
This sentence: 'We also see in behavior that these sharks, whether they be male of female first focused upon both length before body weight' is very confusing. I don't know what you're talking about. maybe it's just that 'of' is the wrong preposition. Please fix this for clarity. 
In general, I would also consider revising your sentence structure. Most of the article is composed of short sentences, some of which connect with each other in general idea, but the flow of the whole article is lacking. The information is good, it should just be broken up better and that will also help with clarity issues. 
Edits I have made: 
I slightly revised the wording directly after the aforementioned 'larger cm' issue. In the next sentence, I added 'in that' after "Males and females differ...". 
I have deleted "prey" in the phrase "larger prey and trickier prey". 
I have added "in" after "By experimentation...". 
Ldorn1227 (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Edits

message: Hi, i'm a student taking Behavioral Ecology at Washu. The behavior section was lacking. As such, I took the liberty of adding to that section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu.alexander (talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your bold contribution! Though, would it be possible if you could rewrite out the sentences that start with "We"?  It's unencyclopedic to use first person-plural (i.e., "the royal We") in Wikipedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New Information

message: Apparently a new species scalloped hammerhead has been discovered, a cryptic species. I'm too sleepy to summarize the article in the following link. Anyone wanna take a shot at adding a paragraph for it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5065510.stm
Jafafa Hots 13:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it at Hammerhead shark, though that was a better place, please improve!  Stefan 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, thanks Jafafa Hots 07:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Species 

message: This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources 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.
For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter,  here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you.  --Whpq (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: The article says this is the most common hammerhead species, but this seems quite inconsistent with the extensive info on IUCN RedList.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.2.89 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification re. Abundance

message: Last night I noticed on the article Sphyrna that the whitefin hammerhead, Sphyrna couardi, was missing; it said there were currently nine species in Sphyrna, but only eight were listed.  I checked FishBase and added the missing species only to find that it redirects here.  Does anyone know why?  Have the two been synonomized or something?  The only connection I can find between the two species is the unsourced listing of Sphyrna Couardi as a synonym in the infobox on this article.  I am by no means an expert on sharks or taxonomy, but it seems like if FishBase has them listed as separate species, they should merit separate wiki articles as well.  64.15.82.212 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking into it some more, the synonym was added to the infobox on 28 August 2014 with no source and no further mention of the synonomy.  Both Sphyrna couardi and whitefin hammerhead redirect to this article, and these redirects were added on the same day as the synonym in the infobox by the same editor: 109.29.22.222.  Since there is no source for the synonymy and I can't find any other mention of it, I'm going to undo all three of these just as soon as I figure out how.  64.15.82.212 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After checking the reference given for the synonymization in Whitefin hammerhead, I have updated Sphyrna and this article to reflect the fact that S. couardi is in fact a synonym of S. lewini and that this brings the total number of species in family Sphyrnidae to eight.  I have also added the appropriate reference to these two pages, as it is currently the only reliable(?) source I've been able to find on the subject.  So far, I've been unsuccessful in finding the original article attributed to McEachran and Serret (Séret?) from 1986.  If I ever find it, I'll add it.  I'm not sure whether or not to restore the redirects I removed from Whitefin hammerhead and Sphyrna couardi, so I haven't done it yet.  I'm sure there's a relevant policy, and if I find it I'll be sure to follow it.  In the meantime, if anyone else has any input, I'd love to hear it!  I'm a novice editor and this is probably my most ambitious contribution to date, so if I'm in the wrong, I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction.  64.15.82.212 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I still haven't found any policy or precedent to support keeping a separate article for S. couardi, and the redirect doesn't meet any of the criteria listed in WP:RFD#DELETE, so I have undone my edits of the redirects.  Both Whitefin hammerhead and Sphyrna couardi once again redirect here, but I think my addition of one sourced sentence in the Taxonomy section should be sufficient to explain the reason should anyone find themselves similarly perplexed as I was yesterday.  I guess this misadventure will teach me to delve a little deeper into matters before I edit in the future! =)  64.15.82.212 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sphyrna couardi redirect

message: — Assignment last updated by Dashingdolphin (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: BSC 4052 Conservation Biology