Talk:Yellow stingray

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Yzx in topic GA Review
Good articleYellow 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 25, 2010Good article nomineeListed

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yellow stingray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Comments in a day or 2. Sasata (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work as usual. Just a few comments:

  • wlink/wikt link for reticulations in the lead
  • Done
  • should Urolophus jamaicensis be put as a synonym in the taxobox?
  • My own policy is to only include original combinations in the synonyms box
  • "…and inserts a single claspers into her cloaca." clasper or claspers?
  • Fixed
  • any lifespan info?
  • Added
  • anything worthwhile to add from the following?
Title: A Unique Vascular Configuration among the Efferent Branchial Arteries and Splanchnic Arteries in the Yellow Stingray, Urobatis jamaicensis
Author(s): Basten, BL; Sherman, RL; Lametschwandtner, A, et al.
Source: MICROSCOPY AND MICROANALYSIS Volume: 15 Issue: 3 Pages: 194-196 Published: 2009
Title: Evoked potential audiograms of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and the yellow stingray (Urobatis jamaicensis)
Author(s): Casper, BM; Mann, DA
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY OF FISHES Volume: 76 Issue: 1 Pages: 101-108 Published: MAY 2006
Title: Gross brain morphology in the yellow stingray, Urobatis jamaicensis
Author(s): Walker, Brian K.; Sherman, Robin L.
Source: Florida Scientist Volume: 64 Issue: 4 Pages: 246-249 Published: Autumn, 2001
  • I added brief notes about the hearing threshold and the brain size; the circulatory system info is probably too esoteric for the general reader (and for me).


Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

All GA criteria are met or exceeded. Sasata (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    Well written, complies with MoS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c(OR):  
    All good.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. 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): 
    All images are PD or appropriately licensed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: