 | Grey reef shark 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 10, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the grey reef shark (pictured) is the first shark species known to perform a threat display to warn off divers who are too close? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Conservation Status? edit
This shark is listed as endangered by the aquatic network. The iucn red list has it listed as Lower Risk/near threatened which system are we using?
Gray or Grey reef shark? edit
GrahamBould just changed from Gray to Grey reef shark, I was about to change back, but I did a check in fishbase and it spells it Grey, same with ITIS, marinebio spells Gray, a quick Google test seams to indicate that Grey is more common, so everything seams to indicate that we have the wrong name and no redirect, I will be bold and do a move now, which will make a redirect, but I'm not sure. Anyone? Stefan 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hum can not move over a redirect since it has a history, anyway, then lets talk and decide and then make the request to an admin to move if it is correct. I think it is. Anyone else? Stefan 14:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Leonard Compagno spells it grey in Sharks of the World, Princeton University Press, New Jersey 2005 ISBN 0-691-12072-2. He's pretty authoritative. GrahamBould 09:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Must be Grey edit
Never heard of Gray reef shark--146.50.201.49 07:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
GA Review edit
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Grey reef shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This is a wonderfully interesting article. I have no suggestions for improvement to offer. It is excellent. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC) GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): Very well written; interesting and clearly presented
b (MoS): Follows MoS
- a (prose): Very well written; interesting and clearly presented
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Excellently referenced b (citations to reliable sources): References are to reliable sources c (OR): No OR apparent
- a (references): Excellently referenced
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Covers all major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic
- a (major aspects): Covers all major aspects
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Congratuations! Another great article.
Reproduction edit
Is this species actually viviparous, or is it ovoviviparous? DS (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- All members of the family Carcharhinidae are viviparous, except for the tiger shark. -- Yzx (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)