Wikipedia:Featured article review/Goblin shark/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Ambrosia10, Junsik1223, Chiswick Chap , WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Fishes, WikiProject Sharks
I am nominating this featured article for review because...Article might need to be expanded with modern scholars/sources. Not sure but there are no migration information, and instead of having conservation status, it was mashed up at "human interaction" section. Taxonomy and evolution could be expanded more. Additionally, the main problem is the usage of unreliable sources questionable sources, which include references 22, 28, 31, 32, 40 (Most of the content were added by the student User:Miguel Yaniz). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now: I think your jumping the gun, if there are modern sources that are neglected then point them out. Also this species doesn't seem to be well studied anyway, FMNH even states "Not a great deal is known about this rare shark". [2] LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me what should be updated here. The IUCN assessment from 2018 is still current, which is a good sign that the pace of research for the shark is fairly slow. I don't see how there could be substantial information on migration, given the infrequency of catches and the fact that obviously these things aren't getting tagged for migration tracking. Is there something in particular that you are expecting to see in the taxonomy and migration. I guess the concern here is just the usage of the Tokyo Zoo Net, the two citations to Taiwan News, and the YouTube video. The YouTube video and its content can probably be culled without major loss unless there's a better source for this sighting. The other stuff I can't really speak for, but I don't think there's a whole lot of work needed here. Hog Farm talk 03:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for this. Since you guys said that there are not that much issues, I will say its the remaining issues are the unreliable sources. I was expecting for the article also to be updated, but I guess not. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm a bit confused: I was expecting for the article also to be updated - what specifically did you feel needed to be updated? I'm not an expert in this subject matter; it's possible that I'm missing something here. Hog Farm talk 03:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for the choice of words that I use. I was just only "expecting" it, but since Goblin Shark was researched just a little bit, there is not much info I guess. As long as the unreliable ones have been removes already then I think this is fine for now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Youtube video removed. I think Tokyo Zoo Net is fine for the specific text citing it. Its about a captive shark at Tokyo Sea Life Park. LittleJerry (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the only things in question now the Taiwan News sources? I do not know enough about the state of the media in Taiwan have any clue about the reputation/reliability of those sources. Hog Farm talk 02:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article was is in good shape now. I will say Keep at this one. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the only things in question now the Taiwan News sources? I do not know enough about the state of the media in Taiwan have any clue about the reputation/reliability of those sources. Hog Farm talk 02:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Youtube video removed. I think Tokyo Zoo Net is fine for the specific text citing it. Its about a captive shark at Tokyo Sea Life Park. LittleJerry (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for the choice of words that I use. I was just only "expecting" it, but since Goblin Shark was researched just a little bit, there is not much info I guess. As long as the unreliable ones have been removes already then I think this is fine for now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm a bit confused: I was expecting for the article also to be updated - what specifically did you feel needed to be updated? I'm not an expert in this subject matter; it's possible that I'm missing something here. Hog Farm talk 03:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for this. Since you guys said that there are not that much issues, I will say its the remaining issues are the unreliable sources. I was expecting for the article also to be updated, but I guess not. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.