Talk:Deepwater stingray
 | Deepwater stingray 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Deepwater stingray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay - I will make any straightforward changes as I go, and note queries below. Please revert if I inadevertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is found widely in the Indo-Pacific - just sounds odd to me, I'd go with "It is widely distributed in the Indo-Pacific" or "It has a wide range across the Indo-Pacific"
- Changed.
- It is found widely in the Indo-Pacific - just sounds odd to me, I'd go with "It is widely distributed in the Indo-Pacific" or "It has a wide range across the Indo-Pacific"
- (902–2,230 ft) - I'd round to 900 ft here. Consistent with the other measurements being 0 or 5 aliquots.
- Rounding fixed.
- (902–2,230 ft) - I'd round to 900 ft here. Consistent with the other measurements being 0 or 5 aliquots.
- Any information on its placement intiialy in the genus Urotrygon?
- Added a bit more detail.
- Any information on its placement intiialy in the genus Urotrygon?
Otherwise, looking nice and tight prose- and comprehensivenesswise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 00:00, 28 April 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: - nice compact, succinct article on a little-known species. I guess it'd be a bonus to get an idea of what "small numbers" mean WRT catching off Africa and more on taxonomic status and biology as information becomes available and accessible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. So many species left to be studied...I worry that a lot will go extinct before we learn much about them. -- Yzx (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)