Talk:Tawny nurse shark

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) 02:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and find it to be an excellent article. The one thing I see missing is any description of it coloring or camouflage in the "Description" section. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

End of second paragraph: "Tawny nurse sharks are yellowish, reddish, or grayish brown above and off-white below, and are capable of slowly changing their color in response to the environment" -- Yzx (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sorry, I didn't see it even though I looked! I think the problem is where that information is, buried in birthing info. Shouldn't it be with the other physical descriptors? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Birthing info? It's in the second paragraph under "Description", after dermal denticles and before size. -- Yzx (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry. Edict conflict. I meant that I looked for it with the mention of the albino shark and could not find the camouflage information. I think the coloring should be more up front and easier to spy, and should mention the camouflage factor. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved the size info to put the "normal color" sentence closer to the "abnormal characteristics" paragraph, but I think it should come before any mention of albinism. The current sentence order is of descending scale: description of normal coloration (most sharks) first, then missing dorsal fin (some individuals), then missing dorsal fin + albino (one individual). -- Yzx (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I trust your judgment. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Very well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): No OR Sources are reliable

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers the important areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

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!

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)