Talk:Night shark

Night shark has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 8, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 21, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that more than 90 percent of the night sharks (pictured) caught off northeastern Brazil contain mercury concentrations higher than that considered safe by the local government?

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sharks Low‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright problem removed

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) 02:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Night shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Given the prompt and easy fixes on the last shark GA nominee, I will begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No type specimen has been designated for this species. - now, that's interesting. A bonus point for an explanation :)

Don't know. My guess is that the original material Poey was working from didn't constitute a type specimen, but there hasn't been enough taxonomic confusion surrounding this species for anybody to bother designating a lectotype later on.

The pectoral fins are less than a fifth as long as the total body length.. - this statement struck me as odd - is there a significance in this WRT shark species?

Well, it was just a more precise way of saying "not that long", which could be diagnostic depending on what species you're comparing it to.

Potential predators of the night shark include larger sharks - worth listing any?

Not to my knowledge.

I would have added latin and greek terms but can't place my dictionaries. Hypo = "under", prion = saw in greek, and signatus is Latin but I'd need to check my dictionary for which meaning helps most. A more specific reference relevant to shark's be good too.

signatus means "signed", but I didn't include it because there's no reference directly connecting Poey's name with the meaning, so I thought I'd err on the safe side of OR. Also I haven't the slightest clue what Poey could've been referring to with that.

Again, another well-polished article...actually I will use one of these:

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- consider the above bonus peer-review-type comments for FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the OR issue is frustrating sometimes when you sorta know why some fact is such but no-one has bothered writing it up. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]