Talk:Pelagic thresher

Latest comment: 10 months ago by 90.243.46.207 in topic Awful main photo
Good articlePelagic thresher 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
DateProcessResult
April 29, 2009Good article nomineeListed

GA Review edit

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is an interesting, well written article. My concerns are the following:

  • "but can be distinguished by the white of its belly not extending over the bases of its pectoral fins." - I don't like this wording as it is clumsy but I could not think of a variant. Perhaps you can.
  • Changed to "...by the dark, rather than white, color over the bases of its pectoral fins"
  • I removed some wikilinks that went to disambig pages, eg. lifespan. Linking to a disambig page is rarely justified.
  • OK
  • I am a little concerned about all the fish terms (WP:JARGON). For the most part you have done a good job of explaining, but any more you can do would be great.
  • Not sure what can be done; changed "labial furrows" to just "furrows", since that's what they are.

Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • O.K. Just be conscious of that in your articles. Really, you do an excellent job. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply


Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Clearly written   b (MoS): Follows MoS  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced   b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable   c (OR): OR  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers major aspects   b (focused): Remains focused on article topic  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Congratulations. Another fine article.

Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Article on hunting strategy edit

There's an interesting new article from PLOS ONE: Thresher Sharks Use Tail-Slaps as a Hunting Strategy. The article's images can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia as they're under a Creative Commons Attribution License. mgiganteus1 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Awful main photo edit

Picture of a dead endangered species can be considered distasteful and I agree. 90.243.46.207 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply