Wikipedia:Peer review/Oceanic whitetip shark/archive1

Oceanic whitetip shark

This was a featured article candidate some time back and has been improved considerably since. Any suggestions for improvements with a view to getting it featured status are appreciated. Yomangani 12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 23:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Two minor things:

• The single sentence paragraph in the lead. Any chance you could incorporate that into one of the other two paragraphs?
• I think you should seperate the notes and references a bit. A new section shouldn't be necessary though.

Cheers, --darkliight^[πalk] 07:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• A few points.
  • The line Some cultures fish for the oceanic whitetip shark as a delicacy or for its fin. suggests that the oceanic white tip is specifically hunted, in fact just about every shark is. It could be clearer.
  • The line the most common shark in its range, and perhaps the most abundant large animal in the world. is somewhat at odds with it's vulnerable status - care to cite where it came from?
    • I was worried about that too, I think it comes from a 1969 publication by Lineaweaver and Backus but I haven't been able to track it down further yet. If it is from there it's obviously 37 years out of date (eek) Yomangani 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no information in the article about it's conservation status - given that the taxobox identifies it as vulnerable there probably is some information out theer about its threats (the fishing trade) and its prognosis. Like many pelagic sharks it may have declined masively (some species by as much as 95%) and this is important info to include. Information on it's popluations should be possible to find on Google Scholar [1] [2]. The IUCN report says This formerly widespread and abundant large oceanic shark is subject to fishing pressure virtually throughout its range. It adds that for the North Atlantic it is the oceanic whitetip shark is assessed as Critically Endangered in the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic because of the enormous declines that have been reported. [3]
  • C. longimanus has a 'typical', although somewhat flattened shark body. Typical for a requiem shark, perhaps?
  • Oceanic whitetips are a draw for divers - so perhaps a mention in the human section regarding their value for tourism?

It's heading in the right direction. I mighttry and squeeze in time to insert some infor from journasl unavaliable on google. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The article would benefit from fewer redlinks to not-yet-notable authors, and page numbers in the reference section as appropriate - it is simply not courteous to force someone to dig through a large book to find a single statement that may be supported there. Inline references would really be ideal. You may wish to consider Harvard referencing, see e.g. saffron. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” AZ _t 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)