Talk:Pelagic thresher

Pelagic 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
Date	Process	Result
April 29, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

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.

Sharks Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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)

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

Congratulations. Another fine article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on hunting strategy

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

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]