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 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
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm saying, as per the article, it is called grey nurse in Australia, spotted ragged-tooth in Africa and sand tiger in the US and UK, all is correct, wikipedia is international and WP:FISH have stated that we should use then name that fishbase uses, fish base calls this shark grey nurse shark so therefore the page is correctly named, sand tiger and spotted ragged-tooth both have redirect. --Stefantalk 02:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. Nobody calls this fish a 'grey nurse shark' outside australia. 'Sand tiger shark' is a much more internationally common name. Before seeing this article I wouldn't have had a clue what a 'grey nurse shark' referred to, despite being perfectly familiar with sand tigers. This could easily confuse people. If there's even a policy about naming according to fishbase which hasn't been followed, why hasn't this article been moved? 86.26.78.54 (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Many species are being moved or debated on where they belong in the taxonomy tree. In wikipedia we use fishbase, see reference in the article, as our main source for fish taxonomy, what is correct is not obvious. Changes in taxonomy happen very slowly, and I doubt there is an entity that everyone accepts as being the 'correct'. So as to answer your question, yes, both difference in opinion and possibly a change happening that is not accepted by fishbase yet. --Stefantalk 06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What do you suggest I link? Should I just link things that I might need clarification on if I were a reader of the article?
I am not good at this. But what you suggest is what I have seen others suggesting. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, but try to not be lost in all that text. --Ettrig (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One or two more pictures, there are many in Commons
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)[reply]
Tick off the items done. Discuss the one's you disagree with.
When you can think of nothing more to do, kindly ask user:Yzx to comment. That user seems to be very interested in sharks.
Will do, thank you so much. --UND77 (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
--Ettrig (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The description section seemed to deviate adequately from the source, these sections tend to be difficult to re-write. The use of "Lastly" was just illogical ... in this case not copy/paste and thus placing it out of context. Although students do blunder like that frequently - a dead give away for plagerism. I did find this; which I assumed plagiarized Wikipedia and not the other way around!
Description: Sand tigers have many features that distinguish them from other shark species. Their mouth extends beyond their eyes, and they usually swim with their mouth open. Their snout is flattened with a conical shape and their body is stout and rather bulky, with two large dorsal fins that are almost equal in size. The tail is elongated andhas a long upper lobe, and the dorsal fins are set back almost beyond the pectorial fins. The pectoral fins are triangular, and the tail is almost one-third as long as the head of the shark. The Sand tiger shark's head is rather pointy, not round and the teeth are smooth edged and sharp-pointed. People normally associate the Sand tigers with the demeanor of being vicious because of their teeth protrude from their mouths when their jaws are closed; however, they are generally quite harmless. The Sand tiger shark usually has a grey back and white underside. It also has grey dorsal fins.Biological Profile
This has to be a first.. a students paper being plagiarized by another entity and not the other way! We are making history here. Thanks for the list; students seemed to perform well when the problems are defined. I of course look to see if they ignore them... let us hope this will not be the case.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, my suggestion is to delete all statements about what this animal is called in other languages. --Ettrig (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:CAPS it's lower case 'sand tiger shark'. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 17:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very few comments remain for processing now! --Ettrig (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Perfect! This is extremely useful. Thanks!--UND77 (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sand tiger shark enjoys hunting in the surf of waters. Attributing a human emotional state to an animal is a common mistake. Even under carefully controlled experiments, it is difficult for behavioral biologist to attribute an emotion with an action. Typically humans draw conclusion based on their own perspectives of emotion. For example, dolphins are happy = they are always smiling. The fact that their mouth is fixed into a perpetual grin may lead us to wrong conclusions. My cat loves me, he is rubbing my legs - nope - he is marking territory with scent glands in his checks. I would like to think the shark enjoys hunting in the surf; however, I suspect the shark feels no emotion - happy or sad - in this endeavor. The term is Anthropomorphism. I'll teach this when we cover animal behavior. Bottlenose dolphin--JimmyButler (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually curious about this. I thought that because cats, dogs, etc. seemed to have enjoyments, every animal was that way. That is very interesting. Thank you for the clarification. I changed all the occurrences of it. --UND77 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt from cat communication: Touching noses is a friendly greeting for cats, while a lowered head is a sign of submission. Some cats will rub their faces along their guardian's cheek, hands, or ankles as a friendly greeting or sign of affection. This action is also sometimes a way of "marking their territory", leaving a scent from the scent glands located in the cat's cheeks. More commonly, a cat will do a "head bonk" (or "bunt"), i.e., bump someone with the front part of its head to express affection.[1]
Sand tiger sharks will often shelter in caves or gutters during the day. I must confess my ignorance. What is a gutter, I'm guessing not the place that the hapless and homeless end up when they are destitute as in "Jimmy if you don't straighten up you'll end up living in the gutter" (Granpa, 1977).
Let me know when you are ready for Teacher Review... I have a positive feel about this one!--JimmyButler (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask you for a review tomorrow, I have to import a few flickr photos because the Wikimedia Commons is lacking. I think the article is ready for some tweaking. The lead is yet to established of course. So, other than the lead and the photos it appears to be ready. Thank you so much!--UND77 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
DONE, is it correct now do you think? I was a little confused on what you were asking here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by UND77 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Humans do not generally serve the Sand tiger as a diet resource, however, the shark has been know to attack a few humans. I found myself making numerous edits, as I attempt to increase verbal efficiency. See here for examples. You seem to rely on a lot of weasel words --- words you can't pin down as wrong such as "few" and "many". These terms are open to opinion and thus useless. This sentence is typical of what I am seeing.
I will read through the article extremely carefully, and make sure that the weasel words won't be in there. Sorry about that, I really have to separate my English writing from my Scientific writing. I will try not to make the same mistakes. --UND77 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So much text at the bottom lacking images. Is there no copyright approved images out there?--JimmyButler (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just took some shots at the aquarium, I am reviewing them now. They should be up shortly. --UND77 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Set the standards with that effort!--JimmyButler (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
The sequence of events here isn't quite right. For example:
Triglochis and Eugomphodus are genus names, not species names. Thus, Muller and Henle's proposed name was Triglochis taurus.
ICZN Opinion 47 gave precedence to Carcharias. By seeking to repeal it, Tucker, White, and Marshall actually wanted Odontaspis to be the genus name, and the request was approved by the ICZN.
The name Compagno first proposed was Eugomphodus taurus (see above). He was largely responsible for reverting the name back to Carcharias taurus (ICZN Opinion 1459).
Information about attacks on humans should be put separately, because these are not part of the natural history of the shark and are thus a completely different topic.
Humans do not serve the sand tiger as a diet resource. I think this is the line... humans do not serve as a dietary source for any sharks; this best addresses "threats to humans".--JimmyButler (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is information on social behavior in this species as well, for example their "tail slapping" behavior.
I have seen evidence of the Great white, Thresher, and Dusky shark having the "tail slapping" behavior, but not the sand tiger. --UND77 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"many roam just for pleasure and fish" -- Don't assign human motivations ("pleasure") to animals.
There are redundant sections (repeating of facts) in the paragraph about "gulping air" which need to be merged.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
many have been reported to be mistaken.... meaning they were not attacked or that the shark mistook them for fish?--JimmyButler (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DONE, I tried to find as much as I could on this subject. The information given seemed pretty straight-forward, there was not much elaboration to be done. --UND77 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reproduction
What are some mating behaviors? This has been observed in captivity.
The sequence of events during gestation is a bit simplified. Multiple embryos develop in each uterus, and the dominant embryo kills and eats the others. Thus, there is only ever one embryo brought to term per uterus (up to two total), and this species exhibits both ovophagy and sibling cannibalism. It's the only shark known to do this.
Thank you! That clears the confusion of the process. Also, is there a resource that states that the sand tiger is the only known shark to do this type of reproduction. I have read many articles on this, but I have yet to find that fact. --UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different figures given for age of maturity, at the beginning of the section and at the end.
There are sources that say the gestation period is 9-12 months.
DONE, NOAA states that the period is eight to nine months. Is this correct? --UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How often are litters produced? Where and when are the young born? What's the pattern of growth through life? What's the maximum lifespan?
The sand tiger shark must reach a status of sexual maturity before mating This statement seems so obvious; that is not worth stating; do other sharks mate before they are sexually mature?
Mating often occurs around the months of March and April Would that not depend on which hemisphere? --JimmyButler (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you! I was saving the lead for last, so that is why it was not tend to. I will be sure to edit the reference out of the lead. --UND77 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note the wording above. References are not required. References are allowed. I prefer without, personally. But don't fret over this one. --Ettrig (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Two behaviors set the sand tiger apart from other sharks: its method of reproduction and its ability to gulp air from the surface to allow it to float effortlessly throughout the water." I've got so many problems with that sentence. First of all, the Description section says that "Sand tigers have many features that distinguish them from other shark species", but here we're told there are only two. Secondly, in what sense is its method of reproduction a behavior? And thirdly, what does "float effortlessly throughout the water" mean?
"It also dwells in the waters of Japan, Australia, South Africa, Great Britain, and Scandinavia". The range map doesn't show it in either the waters around the UK or Scandinavia.
"However, many taxonomists and experts question his change saying that there is not a significant difference between Odontaspis and Carcharias. However, after changing the name to "Eugomphodus taurus" ...". Need to do something about that "However ... However"; "however" is a much overused word.
"He proposed the name because it fit best to the characteristics of the shark because "Carcharias taurus" means ...". Similarly here, "because ... because". And what do you think of "fit best"? I don't think much of it. "Best fitted the characteristics ..."?
"However, biologists observed that the sand tiger swallows their prey whole 93.7 percent of the time". Another one of those "howevers", but more importantly, "the sand tiger swallows their prey"?
Note the number signals, tiger is one, their is 2 or more. --Ettrig (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've got another problem with this sentence, which is to do with the statement that sand tiger sharks swallow their prey whole 93.7% of the time. First of all, biologists haven't observed all sand tigers, just a sample of them, so all that can be said is that among that sample prey was swallowed whole 93.7% of the time. Secondly, the precision to one decimal place seems absurd to me; surely the point is that biologists have observed that sand tigers almost always swallow their prey whole; if this study was to be repeated, what do you think the chance of coming up with 93.7% again would be? Zero? MalleusFatuorum 22:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you. I considered doing that, but I didn't know if it had to be exact percentages. DONE --UND77 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Description
"These teeth are very unique to this species of shark." You can't qualify "unique" in that way; either the teeth are unique or they're not.
How do you reconcile these two apparently contradictory statements: "The sand tiger has not been known to attack humans unless provoked ... There have been twenty-nine unprovoked attacks."
"These estuaries are very susceptible to point source pollution that can be extremely harmful to the pups." What the source says is "juvenile sand tiger sharks are commonly found in estuaries of the eastern U.S. that are susceptible to non-point source pollution." (My emphasis.)
"These teeth are very unique to this species of shark" hum, is there any sharks or any other species for that matter that does not have unique teeth?? I think I understand the point that is trying to be made, but I think it should be reworded??
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)[reply]
And here's my additional suggestion. Leave this article for a couple of days and then come back to it with fresh eyes. Try to forget it's something you've worked on and instead look at it as a regular reader coming across it for the first time would. Right now it really doesn't hang together: the sharks never attack unless provoked, but there are 29 reported cases of unprovoked attacks ... no need to rush it, take your time. MalleusFatuorum 03:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will definetely do that. I just need to take my time. Of all the edits I have done, have I done them correctly? Do they make sense? Especially the unprovoked attacks edit. I tried to make it as connected as possible. Thanks for your help Malleus. I really appreciate it. --UND77 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing fine, but softlee, softlee, catchee monkee. Give yourself a break of a day or two and then come back and read the article like anyone else would. MalleusFatuorum 03:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think Malleus? I tried to go through it carefully, trying to get things more understandable. I saw where you were coming from. After taking a break, I was able to notice problems much clearer. Thank you very much. --UND77 (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. It's like you have to step outside yourself, and look at the article as if it was written by someone else. The best thing of all, I think, is when you look back on something you wrote years earlier and think "Wow, did I really write that? It's fantastic!" MalleusFatuorum 00:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
YES! That's exactly what happened! Some things I thought, "Why in the world would I use that word here?", but the greatest feeling was "Holy mackerel! This is awesome!" I can't wait for the day when someone asks me about the Sand tiger (if that day ever comes), and I can tell them a random fact or just say, "Hey! Check out the article on Wikipedia! I wrote it." Do you think the article is ready for a GA review? Thanks again Malleus. --UND77 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't, not quite. Check out the Interaction with humans section for instance. That needs some work. MalleusFatuorum 02:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I assumed that if I put "Sand tiger shark" that "sand tiger" would be okay too. I don't think it matters though. Thank you for bringing it up! It made me read through my article again. --UND77 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. StringTheory11 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it is now time to review. StringTheory11 03:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article could benefit from more peer-reviewed journal articles as sources. Try to find at least one or two more before this article is passed.
The image captions seem a bit too minimalistic and could benefit from expansion (e.g. for the snout image, explain what we are seeing, for example "snout of a sand tiger shark, showing small eyes.")
Why does the shark have many common names? Is there a reason that people didn't come up with one name originally when it was discovered?
The shark was found in so many different areas, so those who found it made up their own names. Today, most of those names are still used by the places listed. I used the sand tiger as the main common name because it was the name on FishBase that recurred in multiple places worldwide. But I thought that if I listed the other common names, it would ease any controversy. --UND77 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the first sentence to something like "Since the shark has been found in many different areas before a name could be standardized, it has many common names" would probably work well. StringTheory11 05:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify what you mean by "a somewhat unknown classification."
Please define "ICZN" in the article.
Would listing International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature be enough, or should I state the commission's purpose as well?--UND77 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That should probably be enough. StringTheory11 05:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second-to-last and third-to-last sentences in naming process subsection could probably be combined into one.
How did Compagno play a "key role" in renaming the shark to its current name?
Perhaps change to "successfully advocated" for the classification - if that reflects his role.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O. cuspidata is not a synonym of C. taurus, but is congeneric. Agassiz placed C. taurus in Odontaspis because he thought Carcharias and Odontaspis were synonyms.
Odontaspis taurus became more frequently used than Carcharias taurus because Odontaspis was more commonly used, especially for fossil species.
The ICZN first decided in favor of Carcharias (Opinion 47), making Odontaspis a synonym.
Tucker, White, and Marshall argued in favor of Odontaspis, and the ICZN agreed, giving priority to Odontaspis and making Carcharias a synonym (Opinion 723)
Compagno re-established Carcharias and Odontaspis as separate genera, which ICZN approved (Opinion 1459)
Carcharias is from karcharos "jagged" -- it doesn't mean "jagged tooth"; that's what Carcharodon means.
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)[reply]
Explaining why humans think the shark has its characteristics instead of just explaining what they are would help a whole lot. Not necessary for facts such as length and weight, but, for example, the fact that it has reddish brown spots seems interesting and could use explanation as to why the sharks have them.
The sentence about the albino specimen should probably get its own paragraph.
Done, I just deleted the sentence because I could not find an exact reference. Do I need more information in the diet section?--Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it's a subsection of behavior. If it weren't, you would need more info, but as a subsection it is OK. You may need more for FAC, but that's not something to come to right now. StringTheory11 19:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section seems wordy, and could use a rewrite.
Whole section seems like it was just put together one sentence at a time. It needs to flow more smoothly. I recommend a rewrite.
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)[reply]
Why are refs that are web sites such as "thetelegraph.com.au." in lower case? Shouldn't they be the same pattern (Fish...) as other web site publishers? PumpkinSkytalk 03:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Edits removing large parts of text (check needed)[edit]
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)[reply]
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: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
