 | Zebra 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 20, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the zebra shark (pictured) is striped when young and spotted when mature? | |||||||||
| This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
A new paper has just been released regarding annually recurring parthenogenisis occurring at the Burj Al Arab aquarium in Dubai. Is available at Wiley Online and makes very interesing reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.19 (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments
editI think that this is the same as the Leopard shark - let me know if I'm off base... Mark Richards 00:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You are correct: IUCN Redlist - UtherSRG 01:05, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Though Stegostoma fasciatum may be refered to as both Zebra Shark and Leopard Shark, Triakis semifasciatum, which lives on the western coast of North America is only refered to as a Leopard Shark, never a Zebra shark. Due to it's distict range and more specific common name, I believe that Triakis semifasciatum deserves it's own article. Gregory 16:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Anatomy and appearance
edit"It is a very sleek and slender shark, about 11.5 ft long. (SNIP) Maximum known length is about 2.3 meters."
Well, that just can't be right. A quick check on Google shows 3.5m (11.5 ft) as the accepted adult size, which is well over 2.3 meters. I'm going to fix this. Fehrgo 06:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Zebra shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- Well-written
- I see no problems
- Factually accurate and verifiable
- "or the feminine form fasciatum" Isn't the neuter form? I think the feminine would be fasciata.
- You're right. Changed. -- Yzx (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Broad in its coverage
- Yes
- Neutral
- Yes
- Stable
- Yes
- Images
- File:Stegostoma fasciatum distmap.png does not match the description, namely that Madagascar is not surrounded. Not a problem, but a ref is never bad; this link had one. All have sources.
- Uploaded updated map based on Compagno, Dando, and Fowler (2005). -- Yzx (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's fine, but the new upload didn't change the image at all. Reywas92Talk 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Did you try clearing your browser cache? -- Yzx (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Works now! Didn't know that applied to pics as well. Reywas92Talk 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent article overall! Reywas92Talk 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a great article! I'm passing it as GA, and I hope to see you at WP:FAC! Reywas92Talk 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Heading "Relationship to humans"
editI changed this from "Relationship to humans" to "Relationship with humans" on the basis that the former gives the impression that there is some sort of evolutionary link between shark and human, as in "a chimpanzee's relationship to humans is found in its similar genetic make-up". There may well be such a shark–human relationship, for all I know, but it's not exactly what's being discussed in the paras below. This has now been reverted back to "Relationship to humans". I'm not going to go changing it back again; perhaps there is a third way? Ericoides (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll change it to "human interactions", which I've seen used by a shark book. -- Yzx (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great, that's better, but I'm going to change this to "Interaction with humans", which I think is better still as it makes the shark – not humans – the subject of the phrase. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree; "Interaction with humans" makes it sound like the shark is initiating the interacting, when really for the most part it's the other way around. -- Yzx (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, we'll agree to disagree... Ericoides (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hum, not sure there is anything wrong with the original relationship?? I get more google books hits on relationship 1219 than interaction 807, but neither word is really right?? --Stefan talk 09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, we'll agree to disagree... Ericoides (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree; "Interaction with humans" makes it sound like the shark is initiating the interacting, when really for the most part it's the other way around. -- Yzx (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great, that's better, but I'm going to change this to "Interaction with humans", which I think is better still as it makes the shark – not humans – the subject of the phrase. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind the original Relationship to humans, but whatever it is we should strive for consistency. Hundreds if not thousands of animal articles use this header. Reywas92Talk 23:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
According to this: [1] the ones that have gone through some training in aquariums don't mind being "cuddled"... that is certainly interesting! 74.131.118.54 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)