Talk:Alpheidae

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BenjaminMoes. Peer reviewers: Sthomas10, Allanhomes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review
Unfortunately, this article failed its good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1) Well written: For the most part the article is very well written. The prose works well most of the time and is certainly close to good article status.
 * 2) Factually accurate: The article does contain numerous references, unfortunately many statements are unreferenced and in my view the article requires further research given the breadth of the topic (an entire family of arthropods). In my view more references would be of significant benefit, I'd also recommend editors address the unreferenced claims.
 * 3) Broad in coverage: It is my view, given the breadth of the topic (a family of arthropods), that the article is too short and does not cover the topic. Are any species important from a human perspective (food, or the aquarium hobby). What do the species feed on? More information on the ecology of the family would be useful - How variable are the genera with respect to these ecological issues? Reproduction, size information etc. More family specific information - what do the genera have in common?
 * 4) NPOV: The article is written in a neutral fashion. Nice work.
 * 5) Stable: The article appears stable and not subject to editorial disputes.
 * 6) Images: Given the article is on the family Alpheidae it would, in my view, benefit from significant expansion with respect to images. What do genera other than Alpheus look like?

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. MidgleyDJ 11:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Video link
This is the link Id like to be used. The original Youtube video. Recently the link was changed to an ad infested site which is clearly against the rules. An anon keeps reverting it back to the ad link Bl4h 13:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I keep reverting it is to support independant websites. Youtube is not a public collective, it is a private corporation. If you get the same quality of content, if not better, is it truely neccessary to support a monopoly? Besides, the EducatedEarth video contains a link to more information, which is lacking on the youtube video.


 * Fine, but youtube doesnt go around planting links. Besides, who knows how "giving" "EducatedEarth" is. Anon user,drive-by link change, it just didnt seem legit. Fine then Bl4h 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do people insist on it being a youtube link? I don't think brand loyalty should play this important of a role on an encyclopedia... I keep changing the link because the video on EE is accompanied by much more information than the youtube video. If you can get whoever posted the youtube video to add additional information it would make a little more sense to alter the link to youtube.


 * This has nothing to do with brand loyalty. You are the one who brought that up. There are far too many ads on your educated earth video. It simply has a link back to this wiki article. Hardly "much more information". Ill try to find a better link than youtube. Bl4h

This argument seems silly anyway, seeing as Educated Earth uses embedded Youtube videos on its pages anyway... Rohaq (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Snapping Effect
5000 K is not 5273.15 Celsius, rather 4726.85. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.220.232 (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How can this animal suorvive 5000 degrees Kelvin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.66.48.41 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this process what's behind the various martial art "death punch" or strikes? Impact causes cavitation in the bloodstream/organs, disrupting bodily functions. What would happen to my hand if the shrimp did this to it? I guess it's true what they say, you must be like mighty prawn... real DBZ shiz, yo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.114.222 (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alpheidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606064728/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s21/s21rbz1-109.pdf to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s21/s21rbz1-109.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Snapping shrimp have helmets
Alexandra C.N. Kingston, et al. 'Snapping shrimp have helmets that protect their brains by dampening shock waves'. 5th July 2022. Current Biology --Kurihaya (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Helmet-like orbital hoods mitigate blast-induced neurotrauma in snapping shrimp