Talk:Pacific electric ray/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to follow tonight.

Not too much I comment about this one... looks pretty good already. Check my edits are ok
link substrate

Done

a prologue citation and possible link would be a nice touch, as well as for Gill's 1861 genus transfer

Refs added, couldn't find a link

"Over a thousand pulses may be produced in all, depending on the duration of the feeding process." unclear "feeding process"

Clarified

"Reported litter sizes range from 17 to 20; at least the number of ova increases with the size of the female." Not sure why "at least" is there?

In some species, the number of ova does not correspond closely to the number of young, so the correlation here between ova number and female size doesn't necessarily also mean a correlation between litter size and female size. I added a note so hopefully it's clearer now.

link Pacific Fisheries Management Council

Done

fix dabs to diurnal and endemic

Done

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article meets all GA criteria: Sasata (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Well written, complies with MoS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
Well-cited to reliable sources; some facts verified during review.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Similar in coverage to other other shark/stingray GAs.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Four images, all PD.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]