Talk:Bigeye sand tiger

A fact from Bigeye sand tiger appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 April 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the presence of the rare bigeye sand tiger in the Pacific Ocean was first suspected based on teeth recovered from the ocean floor?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/April.

Wikipedia

Bigeye sand tiger 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.
Review: May 17, 2013. (Reviewed version).

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.

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.

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. --– Sadalmelik ☎ 06:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead, Odontaspis was found to be closer to the crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai), suggesting that it and Carcharias should be placed in separate families." But we're yet to see such a separation formally proposed?

It's been talked about, but I've not seen it gain wide acceptance in the literature.

"The corner of the mouth extends to behind the level of the eyes, and the jaws are highly protrusible. There are 34–43 upper and 37–46 lower tooth rows; these include zero to two rows at the upper symphysis (jaw center) and two to four rows at the lower symphysis. Each tooth has a narrow, awl-like central cusp flanked by one cusplet on each side; this contrasts with the smalltooth sand tiger, which has two or three lateral cusplets on each side. In the upper jaw, the large teeth at the front and sides may be separated by one or two small intermediate tooth rows." This passage is a little jargony. I'd like to see some more links/explanations of technical terms.

I've reworded it some and linked cusp (which unfortunately is poor both in name and in content) and tooth row.

"...a short but distinct lower lobe and a long upper lobe bearing a ventral notch near the tip." This, too, is unfriendly to people unfamiliar with the subject matter.

Reworded the sentence.

Presumably, we don't know how long they live? Do you have a source saying that?

We do not; I added a note.

Categories for year of description and distribution? I know you're not a fan, but, while we have them, we may as well be using them.

Added. I left out Indian Ocean since it's not definite.

The sources look fine. The ReefQuest Centre for Shark Research probably isn't ideal, but certainly isn't problematic. Images are solid. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writing's good. Sources look fine

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, happy that this is ready for GA status. J Milburn (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]