Talk:Tiger shark

Template:Vital article

Template

Shouldn't the list of shark species be made into a template? Babajobu 11:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up needed for this article

I don't know how much the contributors of this page read the articles for other shark species. Let me enlighten you. Some are absolutely top-drawer, first-class work (e.g. Oceanic Whitetip Shark& Great White Shark). Others, like this one really stink; however, Bull shark is worse. Kind of reminds me of a guy from Alabama that I once knew, all he ever said was "Mississippi's worse". Hokeman 04:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• This article has improved to the point where it doesn't stink anymore. --Hokeman 00:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've added an image, but I can't decide which one I like seeing up there better: "scarface-tigershark.jpg" or "scarface-tigershark2.jpg"... the first one is cleaner, but the second more dramatic. -- pterantula 12 June 2007

So lets add both! :-) Stefan 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Stefan, you replaced my image. I have no problem about that. But can you move that incredible new image to the Commons please? This will allow people to tag it with common categories so that it appear in category pages reachable from the wikipedia article (from the link to commons in the External Links section). Fred Hsu 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the old image back to the anatomy section temporarily, until we find a better full-body image. I gave the image a better title. Feel free to remove it again if you feel strongly about it. After all, you have been cleaning this article lately and have a better sense about how you want to further improve it in future. Fred Hsu 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hum, I do not have a user on commons, I have been wating for unified usernames for a looooong time, will try to grab my en username on commons, if I can just remember how to request for that. Stefan 01:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep that image, it actually fits ok in the article so it does not harm anyone, sorry for removing it! Stefan 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize you can 'grab' a name. Are you serious? ;) Another advantage of adding image to the commons is that wiki from other languages can easily reuse the same image. I really have no problem with my image being replaced. I have rewritten other people's articles and replaced other people's images in the past. Wikipedia needs better images, in general, and we shouldn't be afraid to replace existing images with better ones :) Fred Hsu 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can grab (or at least request to get) a username that is created but not used, i.e. have no edits, 'mine' had no edits so was ok, you can not grab a username that us created and used. See [1] last section about usurpation. I have now created a user and gotten it renamed and uploaded all images that user:Pterantula have uploaded to commons, except the new larger size Image:Whiteshark-TGoss5b.jpg which should really replace Image:Whiteshark-TGoss5.jpg on commons, but I'm not allowed to do this since my commons user is to new, either you do it or I wait a few days, not sure how long it is on commons, think it is 4 days on en. Stefan 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article says that Great Whites are responsible for the most human fatalities, while the Oceanic Whitetip article claims that that shark outpaces all other species combined in regards to deadliness to humans. I'm no biologist or zoologist, but this seems like it should be rectified? Anyone know for sure which view is correct? Ghamming 13:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article shows several photos of a tiger shark, which are taken at Kas, antalya, Turkey. I dived many times in that area, but did not see any tiger shark. I have checked the source of those pictures, http://www.ryanphotographic.com/gcuvier.htm . It clearly indicates, that the pictures are taken at bahamas. So the picture information on several pictures should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hozkan (talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In the section "Dangers and conservation," this unintelligible sentence occurs: "A large tiger shark is seen killed and hung the movie presumably matching the size and bite pattern of the shark which attacked Hamilton." Presumably it is in reference to a recent movie based on the Bethany Hamilton shark attack, but that isn't overtly stated, nor is the sentence properly formed.giggle 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

Questions

I love tiger sharks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) . that was really uncalled for. this paragraph is for questions only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.79.111 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the nr1 in casualties was the ocean white tip shark and not the great white: "Famed oceanographic researcher Jacques Cousteau described the oceanic whitetip as "the most dangerous of all sharks".[14] Despite the greater notoriety of the great white shark and other sharks habitually found nearer the shore, the oceanic whitetip is considered responsible for more fatal attacks on humans than all other species combined, as a result of predation on those shipwrecked or from aircraft downed in the open ocean.[7] These incidents are not included in common shark-attack indices for the 20th and 21st centuries, but would appear to total in the thousands worldwide, with one incident alone, the torpedoing of USS Indianapolis on July 30, 1945, giving a minimum figure of between 60 and 80 sailors killed by sharks.[1] Also during World War II, the Nova Scotia, a steamship carrying approximately 1,000 people near South Africa was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine. There were only 192 survivors, and many deaths were attributed to the oceanic whitetip shark.[2]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_whitetip_shark

GA nomination

This is close to GA quality, but not quite there yet. The article reads well, but occasionally has a non-encyclopedic tone. "as it flirts with the equator throughout the colder months." or "The attack is a brutal confrontation". There are also rather few references in the text and multiple unsupported statements. More images would also be a bonus, but not essential. TimVickers 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with the above comments - let me amplify them a little. (1) Remove unencyclopedic language that sounds like a 7th grade book report (2) A full body image in the water would be appropriate where the teeth image is located now (Move that one down into the Diet Template. Teeth/Diet sort of goes together). There are a lot of images on the worldwide web of Tiger sharks attacking albatross chicks at French Frigate Shoals (in the northwest Hawaiian Chain). A full-body shot of one of these would be perfect. (3) Go back through the text again and add references to unsourced statements like we did getting Oceanic whitetip ready for FA status.--Hokeman 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I would suggest moving the second paragraph in the Diet template which starts out, "The shark is known to be aggressive..." down into the Dangers template. Also I recommend moving the photo of the teeth down adjacent to where it talks about teeth at the bottom of the anatomy template. Right above it let's think about putting a full body photo of a tiger shark in the water because the first paragraph in the anatomy template talks about the gross anatomy.--Hokeman 04:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? OK

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? OK

Additional comments :

• Please fix this image's tag.

Fixed. Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Having a reference for the paragraph that starts with Its teeth are flat, triangular, notched and serrated... would be really useful to verify the veracity of the fact.

Fixed. Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Same as above for the paragraph Recent information contradicts the notion that the tiger shark ...

Not so easy, I can not find anything, anyone else?? Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will also say that the presence of the word recent in the sentence is not appropriate for WP which tries to be time-independent. Lincher 11:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph adds nothing of value to the article so I've removed it. Yomangani^talk 12:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lincher 15:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

Upon recent revamping of the page in accordance with requested elements mentioned in the above section, the article is now of GA status. Cheers, Lincher 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Size

The article reads, "but there have been confirmed specimens as large as 6.4 m (21.5 ft)", is there any actual source with more information on this giant specimen? I have never heard of a verified find of a specimen larger than 5.5 m. Luka 08:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I can not find any reference for that, lets remove that statement until a good reference is found. Stefan 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hawai'ian Laws?

"It is illegal to feed sharks in Hawaii and any interaction with them such as cage diving is discouraged." This cannot be true, as I've done cage 'diving' (with galapagos and sandbar sharks) off the coast of Oahu's North Shore (Hale'iwa), and there is more than one company doing this. The sharks are fed scraps of food off the stern of the boat. Pterantula 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well speeding is illegal also, but I must confess that I have done that once or twice :-) I guess you took Jimmy Hall's Hawaii Shark Encounter Tours? See [2], [3] and so on, just do a google search. Stefan 23:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Added better ref to actual page see [4]. Stefan 23:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Weight range

Someone keeps modifying the weight range without proper reference: first time and second time. The two previous source clearly indicated that the normal range of this animal is 850 to 1400 lb. And one reference talked about a possible 2000 lb one. The anonymous editor destroyed previous reference in the first attempt and replaced it with a broken reference in the second attempt. The newly added reference also pointed out:

The adult tiger commonly reaches lengths of 10–14 ft, weighing 850–1400 lbs. The largest specimens have been known to reach 17–18 ft and to weigh 2,000 lbs.

That the tallest human, Leonid Stadnyk, is 2.58m tall doesn't mean we should we should use 2.58m as the second number in the average height range of human. I am reverting the second attempt at changing this article. Fred Hsu 02:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiger shark is not second-largest predatory shark

Opening sentence is wrong. The bluntnose six-gill, Pacific sleeper and Greenland sharks are larger predatory sharks, approaching or exceeding the size of the largest white sharks in terms of length, weight- see their wikipedia pages.152.23.73.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tiger shark Antalya bitting camera.jpg‎ and Image:Tiger shark in Mediterranean Sea, Antalya Kaş.jpg

The article shows several photos of a tiger shark, which are taken at Kas, antalya, Turkey. I dived many times in that area, but did not see any tiger shark. I have checked the source of those pictures, http://www.ryanphotographic.com/gcuvier.htm . It clearly indicates, that the pictures are taken at bahamas. So the picture information on several pictures should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hozkan (talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is questionable if these pictures have a valid license, see http://www.ryanphotographic.com/ which is the source. I have asked the uploader User_talk:Nemera on his talk page but am very busy IRL. --Stefan ^talk 00:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, the range map doesn't show anywhere in the Mediterranean being within this shark's natural habitat. Something here is a tad awry. 83.104.127.226 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I replaced/removed the pictures. --Stefan ^talk 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferanced Bias Agaisnt Sharks

I've removed this section because it provides no evidence, but general evidence abotu sharks says the complete opposite.

"It is notorious for attacks on swimmers, divers and surfers in Hawaii. Recent studies on tiger shark migration have suggested that individual tiger sharks will repeatedly attack humans, sometimes coming to the same beach at the same time each year." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.84.140 (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination

This is close to GA quality, but not quite there yet. The article reads well, but occasionally has a non-encyclopedic tone. "as it flirts with the equator throughout the colder months." or "The attack is a brutal confrontation". There are also rather few references in the text and multiple unsupported statements. More images would also be a bonus, but not essential. TimVickers 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with the above comments - let me amplify them a little. (1) Remove unencyclopedic language that sounds like a 7th grade book report (2) A full body image in the water would be appropriate where the teeth image is located now (Move that one down into the Diet Template. Teeth/Diet sort of goes together). There are a lot of images on the worldwide web of Tiger sharks attacking albatross chicks at French Frigate Shoals (in the northwest Hawaiian Chain). A full-body shot of one of these would be perfect. (3) Go back through the text again and add references to unsourced statements like we did getting Oceanic whitetip ready for FA status.--Hokeman 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I would suggest moving the second paragraph in the Diet template which starts out, "The shark is known to be aggressive..." down into the Dangers template. Also I recommend moving the photo of the teeth down adjacent to where it talks about teeth at the bottom of the anatomy template. Right above it let's think about putting a full body photo of a tiger shark in the water because the first paragraph in the anatomy template talks about the gross anatomy.--Hokeman 04:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? OK

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? OK

Additional comments :

• Please fix this image's tag.

Fixed. Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Having a reference for the paragraph that starts with Its teeth are flat, triangular, notched and serrated... would be really useful to verify the veracity of the fact.

Fixed. Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Same as above for the paragraph Recent information contradicts the notion that the tiger shark ...

Not so easy, I can not find anything, anyone else?? Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will also say that the presence of the word recent in the sentence is not appropriate for WP which tries to be time-independent. Lincher 11:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph adds nothing of value to the article so I've removed it. Yomangani^talk 12:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lincher 15:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

Upon recent revamping of the page in accordance with requested elements mentioned in the above section, the article is now of GA status. Cheers, Lincher 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tiger shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 14, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

I am reviewing this article as part of the GA sweep, which helps to ensure that all articles tagged and listed as Good articles meet the GA criteria. The article currently fails to meet 2 criteria. First, sourcing is weak, several citations are need (see comments below), and the coverage needs to be improved. I'll put the article "on hold" for 7 days to allow editors to address these issues. Sasata (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to fix what you have found, but do not think I can make it in 7 days (have way to little time for wikipedia now-a-days, please give a bit more time?) --Stefan ^talk 09:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's no problem at all. In fact, I'll be going on a 3-week leave in less than a week, so I'll check back in mid-June. Sasata (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• There are several statements to which I've added cite-tags. Many of them because they contain weasel-statements ("...is known to be", "...is considered to be", "... is regarded as..."), others are statements that simply need backing up with reliable sources.
• There are two unsourced paragraphs in the "Anatomy and appearance" section
• The distribution section should be beefed up, currently the section only mentions the extremes of its distribution without stating in what locales this species is most likely to be found. For example, a quick web search reveals that this species is common in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, surely that should be mentioned here.
• How long before the young shark reaches sexual maturity?
• Any info on behavior and social structure?
• The References section is really thin for a GA, and I suspect there's a lot of research in scholarly publications that hasn't been mentioned here. For example, there's evidence that dugongs trade food for safety from tiger sharks - an interesting behavior which certainly deserves a mention. How about a study that tracks the long-term movement of the sharks? A recent (2007) study on reproductive behavior would be great for extending the Reproduction section. I'm sure the readers would like to know about this kind of information, and it would greatly enhance the article.
• The "In popular culture" section is largely unsourced and does little to add value to the article. Please add citations, change from list to prose format, or consider removing the section altogether. See Wikipedia:Trivia_sections

From the lead section, paragraph 4: "The tiger shark is second only to the great white shark, coming close to the bull shark in number of recorded attacks on humans". What does this mean?

The section "Distribution and habitat" would benefir from more references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How's the progress? I'd like to finish this review... Sasata (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad, have been busy with other stuff and I forgot, will try to do something in the next 2-3 days, but no promises :-) --Stefan ^talk 00:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I question whether http://ladywildlife.com/animals/tigershark.html can be considered a reliable source. It seems to be a personal website. It is the only place I can find such statements as "The ability to pick up low-frequency pressure waves enables the shark to advance towards an animal with confidence, even in the environment of murky water where it is often found." —Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to delist this article from GA status for the reasons given above. Anyone is welcome to resubmit for GAN after the article has been brought up to standard. Sasata (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I will see what I can do in this regard. Though, I am now attempting to improve this article with reliable references. The improvement process may take some time. --LeGenD (talk) 12:40, 04 May 2010 (UTC)

Shark attacks

The oceanic whitetip shark article claims that the species is "a danger to survivors of oceanic shipwrecks and downed aircraft — it has attacked more humans than all other shark species combined." The tiger shark article claims that the species is "second only to the great white shark in number of recorded attacks on humans." I haven't checked to see what the great white shark article claims. So which is it? Either one of the articles needs to be reworded or clarified or the statistics are wrong. --98.232.98.144 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be more afraid of a tiger shark than an oceanic whitetip shark, because although they are about the same length, I think tiger sharks are more muscular and would have less trouble killing and eating someone. Also, tiger sharks are more widely feared than oceanic whitetips. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 02:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead needs cleaning

Seems to be a lot of repetition....the fact that they're predators is mentioned twice (the second seems redundant as the section describes the prey it eats). Additionally, its name/striping relationship is mentioned twice. In general the lead seems like it is a series of facts written by different authors (lacking some citations..) without unifying flow. I didn't want to step on any toes, so I thought I'd suggest it be rewritten here before I took a crack at it.Jbower47 (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Go ahead and be bold and make whatever changes you find necessary. If anyone objects, they'll revert them and we can discuss here. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 21:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do, just wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on toes:)Jbower47 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

    Okay, I cleaned up the lead and moved non sequitur specific facts to their proper section in the document. I moved things around, so read the whole thing..it 's probably still there, just in a different location to have better flow.Jbower47 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.62.218 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 

Biology - ampullae of Lorenzini

I think there may be some confusion, or the text may need clarification, in relationship to the ampullae of Lorenzini. The structures detect bioelectrical energy. The statement that these are used to detect small muscle movements, I think, may be either confusing the a. of L. with a shark's lateral line (which aids in detecting minute disturbances/vibration). The a. of L. detect bioelectrical fields in general, not necessarily related to a certain class of muscle movements.Jbower47 (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Being bold:), I rewrote aspects of the Biology, range, and diet sections. There were some items that needed clarification (function of a. of L. as stated above)( and some additions (the lateral line, etc). Tried not to mess too much with what was already there. Made some edits, moved some text for flow. I didn't delete anything unless there was redundancy. There's a bit more that needs editing, but I'm out of time for the day:)Jbower47 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeth

Article states: "and unusually among sharks, its upper and lower teeth have dissimilar shapes".

This is true for e.g. Hemipristis, but as far as I can tell G. Cuvier's uppers and lowers are very similar. There is no longer a photo of its teeth included on the page, but google for yourself. Here is a quote from the quite authoritative elasmo.com website: "It is very difficult to distinguish uppers from lowers in tiger sharks, even in a modern jaw the uppers are virtually indistinguishable from the lowers."

JEH (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiger shark/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC) There are a few things to be done before this article can be passed for a GA stamp

• For the taxonomy section, either expand on it or simply remove the tag.
• Fix the prose problem for the section on its range and habitat.
• Make the article consistent with its use of "Tiger shark" vs "tiger shark". The biology sub-section has a few uses of "Tiger shark".
• Fix the links for citations 13, 14 and 29.

LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

All issues fixed. 1007D has been blocked, but I fixed the issues for him (and removed a dead link). By the way, I am a new user named Pop Goes the Decay. Does this article meet the GA criteria? Pass? Pop Goes the Decay (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hello. I'm not the official reviewer, but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. In the external links, there's no need to list links which are linked to elsewhere in the article. So the link to commons is given in a box in the side, the link to IUCN redlist is in a ref, etc. Those sort of links shouldn't also be in the external links section. (Also IUCN is in the refs twice; those should be combined.) In my opinion, the lede, "see also" section, images, and captions are all good. These are areas many articles have problems with, but they seem fine here. Hope my extra opinions are useful! All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the original nominator has now been blocked indefinitely. I'll take over the nomination, and will make the changes listed above. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: LittleJerry (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Tiger shark.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tiger shark.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Length

How does something "grow up to 14–20 feet long"? Wouldn't that just be "grows up to 20 feet long"? 129.139.1.69 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Could use a sentence or two explaining how it came to be known as Tiger Shark. I certainly can't see any resemblance to a tiger, and would be interested to know. Rikeus (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a very distinct striped pattern along the length of the shark on it's sides. In mature sharks, this often isn't as distinct, but it is very clear in juveniles. It's this pattern which gives them their name. douts (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Accidental "cite error" - please help?

Somewhere in the numerous edits I just made to the article I appear to have messed up two of the references. I mean well but am by no means an expert on using this website - could someone please look into it and fix this error? I tried to find it but I cannot figure out where I went wrong. PLEASE DO NOT SIMPLY REVERT MY EDITS; I spent quite a while improving the accuracy of this article and would hate to see all that work go to waste. Thanks.

Please be more specific - which references did you mess up and in what sense? Materialscientist (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)