Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manta ray/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Manta ray edit

Manta ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because it gained GA status earlier this month and has since undergone a peer review and we think it is of a high enough standard to qualify. One would have thought that this enormous fish, with a wingspan of up to 8 metres, would be extensively studied. In fact it is difficult to research because it lives much of its life in mid-ocean and when spotted, tends to swim off into the distance and not be seen again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by I'll review this in detail later this week, but just glancing I noticed a couple of obvious points Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some web refs don't have a publisher
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some on-line versions of real journals have retrieval dates, not needed (assuming ref 1 is a journal, couldn't get it to open Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length in the lead is metric-only, needs Imperial conversion for the poor benighted yanks 07:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Looks pretty good, some queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • references: #3 first letter of manta is lower case, unlike others, looks odd. #12 Binomial should be Roman text #43 George??
  • 2001 study of mitochondrial DNA in 2001. — overdated
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • occur together sympatry. — missing word(s)?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have flattened bodies — "horizontally" would clarify
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • to demonstrate this — that illustrate this may be better
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • eats 13% of its body weight — about may be advisable, unless every manta does exactly this
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer to remoras at least twice in contexts suggesting they are harmful, is that a fact?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An individual manta may revisit...[34] They....
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6.3-million-gallon — metric?
Not know how to convert. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's 23848 cubic metres, assuming they are US gallons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I don't know how to convert with the template. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mandatory to use the template, I never do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • third has recently — this will date, give the year
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not knowing about their gentle nature — Is this verifiable? Films have been known to distort the facts even when they are known (shock horror!)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd put the Culture items in chronological order
That doesn't make sense to me. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not actionable as part of this review, but I'd suggest archiving some of the web-only sites to avoid future linkrot
Although only the conversion, which I've converted, needs fixing, I'll wait to see what transpires with Yzx's more knowledgeable analysis before I go any further. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be on track again, and I have no outstanding issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Yzx

*The subfamily is Mobulinae, not Mobulidae

*There should be distribution maps for each species, or one map that shows the range of both

There are none available. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An option is to find a map for M. birostris that predates the taxonomic revision, and use it with a note.
Why? The reef manta's range is within the oceanic manta's range anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Genus synonyms should be given

A search at the Catalog of Fishes turns up more.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*The early view that "black" and "white" mantas -- there's no previous context to indicate what this means

It's still not very clear, because you haven't yet introduced the notion that mantas have color morphs. It's also confusing because right after that sentence you start talking about how mantas can be divided into two species.
Color morph should be linked somewhere
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant in that sentence since it's the first place it comes up in the article, i.e. "...some argued that the black color morph was a different species from the mostly white morph." -- Yzx (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*The first paragraph under "Evolutionary history" doesn't seem relevant. It should be rewritten to focus on manta biogeography and how geological changes have affected it

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*There's no mention that mantas are descended from stingrays

  • What do you mean by "descended"? Do you mean that there's no mention of mantas being included in the suborder Myliobatoidei? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Body proportions (length vs width) would be helpful

The article does already give the proportion of how length/width proportions and the sources only give exact measurements for width (disc). LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*There's no description of what the teeth or dermal denticles look like, although both are mentioned in the article

Yes there is. In the third paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Information on coloration is interrupted by the paragraph on physiology

The first two paragraphs are meant to give information on general appearance and physiology while the third is meant to discusses differences between the species. LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but it disrupts the flow of the section because you go from talking about external appearance, to physiology and anatomy, back to external appearance. I recommend putting the 1st and 3rd paragraphs together under "description" and have a separate section for anatomy/physiology.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Information in "Lifecycle" section conflates M. alfredi and M. birostris, e.g. data on maturation size, which is certainly different for the two species. It needs to be rewritten to make clear what info applies to which species, and which info applies to both

Now only the Mozambique maturation size is assigned to species. If the Indonesian figure is for M. alfredi, this should be stated.
Looking at the refs, I'm still seeing passages cited to a study of one species being implied as common to both. Are there no additional sources that can be added?
This is difficult since the studies were done before the species classification split. See Cwmhiraeth's comment below. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IUCN gives reproductive details for each species separately. -- Yzx (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that maturation size should be specified for both species since they differ. Here, I've collected the data from the IUCN:
Location alfredi male alfredi female birostris male birostris female
Mozambique ~3 m "slightly under" 4 m 4 m "well over" 4 m
Maldives 2.5 m 3 m
Hawaii 2.8 m 3.4 m
Indonesia 3.8 m 4.1 m
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Cephalic fin"/"cephalic lobe" are used inconsistently

*Why are threats/conservation grouped with distribution? The two topics have little to do with each other

I recommend that the threats come before conservation, since one is a response to the other.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*There's no mention of where manta catches come from (commercial vs artisanal fisheries, directed fishing vs bycatch, types of gear, etc)

Yes it does. It mentions both directed fisheries and bycatches. LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only direct mention of bycatch I see is in the passage about Ecuador regulations, where it doesn't make sense because the fact that mantas are caught incidentally hasn't been introduced. The concept of bycatch should be linked explicitly to the discussion of net entanglements, because it's such a major concept in marine conservation. There's also no direct mention of how they're caught (harpoons? fishing line? nets?)
The article states "Similarly, mantas are often entangled in gill nets designed for smaller fish, often resulting in suffocation and death". That sounds like bycatching to me. Added capturing methods. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bycatch should be referenced or linked under "Threats", or otherwise when readers encounter the term under "Status" they won't know what it means.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*There's no mention of other economic uses besides gill rakers (e.g. meat, skin, liver oil)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*The "Culture" section reads like a list of trivia. I'm not certain the fact that it's appeared in movies (which are cited to the movies themselves, a warning sign to me), etc is notable unless discussed in secondary sources

The same notability concerns goes for the music (cited to album listings) and the car (whose source doesn't support the statement given). Is there no secondary source that states something like "the manta ray has inspired movies, music, etc"?
No, removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*There's no mention of the origin of manta rays being called "devilfish", or of the associated folklore

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*There's actually an interesting history behind the public perception of manta rays changing from dangerous to harmless (Peter Benchley's involved!)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have more nitpicky comments but I'll hold off on those for now. As a general note, I'd be careful about taking information gathered from one species and applying it to both. -- Yzx (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the points you raise are a bit difficult to deal with. It was only in about 2009 that there was some agreement that there were 2 species, M. alfredi and M. birostris. It is therefore unclear in earlier papers which species was being described and as large parts of their ranges overlap and it is not possible to stop them and examine them in detail, it is still partly guesswork as to which species is being observed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

*IUCN status should not be used for genus-level articles or above. Only species (and populations within species) are given IUCN assessments

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*The type species and authority should be given

Redundant. The readers get the idea by reading the 3rd paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The type species is a fundamental taxonomic aspect of a genus, and it's the original name combination associated with the genus. You can't figure out what that is from the paragraph.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be the original combination. I've fixed it myself. -- Yzx (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*In the intro, size should be given for each species individually

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*There is information available about the evolution and phylogeny of mantas, both about how the two species relate to each other, and about how the genus relates to other rays

Added in cladogram made by Sasata. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*It used to be thought that batoids evolved from sharks, but molecular studies have shown that instead they share a common ancestor with the sharks -- the evolutionary origin of rays is a contentious subject, and the accuracy of this statement depends on how one defines "shark". There's no need to bring it up in this article

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Mantas evolved from bottom-dwelling stingrays and lost their stinging brabs while their pectrol fins became more wing-like -- only one of the mantas has lost its sting. Also, pectoral fin is misspelled

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Studies in the oceans around Japan in 2010 -- "published" in 2010, not performed

*Maximum weights should be separate for the two species because they differ in maximum size

Weights were given before the species classification split. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would phrase it like "the largest known manta weighed..." rather than "Mantas reach a...", so as to avoid implying both species
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*The fish's gill arches have palates of pinkish-brown spongy tissue -- I think you mean "pallet", as in a strip or band of something. "Palate" is a specific anatomical structure not related to gills

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still there
Oops, fixed now. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*The source given for mating behavior ([2]) does not seem correct since it doesn't talk about mantas specifically.

  • The source given discusses the mating procedures in cartilaginous fish, a group which includes manta, and is correct for the sentence that immediately precedes it. I have added an extra reference for the earlier sentences in the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*the developing embryos feed on the egg yolks -- "feed" is not exactly right since the embryos aren't using their mouths to eat them (this is a specific behavior called oophagy)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood; I meant that the manta isn't oophagous, so it should be "the embryos absorb the yolk" or something similar
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*feed on milky secretions -- the term for this is histotrophy and again, they're not eating it. The histotroph is delivered directly into the gut through the spiracles

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*In 2011, mantas became strictly protected in international waters thanks to their recent inclusion -- was this inclusion in 2011? If so, then "recent" is redundant

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*When was M. alfredi assessed by the IUCN?

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Yzx (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks pretty good on comprehensiveness and accuracy. Since there's been a recent copyedit I'll go through it again for prose. -- Yzx (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments:

  • Comma usage needs to be sorted throughout the article:
  • The standard convention is there to be one behind the penultimate item in a list. For example, behind while the smaller, M. alredi, and behind entanglement in fishing nets, etc
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are commas missing where there should be, for example behind The scientific naming of mantas has had a convoluted history, Their large mouths are rectangular and face forward, Courtship is difficult to observe in this fast-swimming fish
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are extra commas where there shouldn't, for example larger M. birostris, found throughout tropical, subtropical and warm temperate oceans
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some long sentences would benefit from commas separating the phrases, for example in The denticles have multiple cusps and overlap in M. birostris while those of M. alfredi are evenly spaced and lack cusps.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • which they imbibe through their open mouths -- "imbibe" seems like the wrong word; that's used for drinking
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vulnerable" is used both as in a specific sense (Both species are listed as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature) and a general sense (but are more vulnerable closer to shore) -- recommend capitalizing or quoting the IUCN status to distinguish, or using different words when it's the general sense
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • which originally meant a type of trap shaped like a blanket, traditionally used to catch rays -- comma overuse in this sentence, suggest "a type of blanket-shaped trap traditionally used to catch rays"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • cartilaginous fish with tough cartilage -- "cartilaginous" is redundant
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about the author of the genus is sandwiched between the sentences about the authors of the two species. If the intention is to be chronological, then more context needs to be added about the taxonomic history (e.g. "the manta was first described as ___ by ___. Then ___ placed it in the new genus Manta, etc)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prince Alfred's manta ray -- this common name has not appeared before and the reader won't know what you're talking about
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both it and M. birostris occur in sympatry -- The "both" should be removed, or you should say what they're both sympatric with
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although some small teeth have been found, few fossilized skeletons of manta rays have been discovered -- I don't understand the use of "although" here
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • one from the Oligocene in South Carolina and two in North Carolina from the Miocene and Pliocene -- parallel examples should be worded the same way
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source given for color morphs (ref 10) doesn't mention color morphs. Also, a white color morph is different from an albino
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • charcoal-colored ventral outlines on the fins -- pectoral fins?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rete mirabiles may serve to warm the brain -- "serve to keep the brain warm". Subtle distinction, but the rete doesn't generate heat, it functions to conserve metabolic heat
Fixed. The source suggests it warms the brain so that what I'm going with. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • presses his ventral side against hers -- does the male turn upside-down, or no? This varies among rays
I don't know. Cwheairth has the source. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He then inserts his claspers -- cartilaginous fish typically use only one clasper during mating, should check

See above. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Indonesia, M. birostris males appear to mature at 3.75 m (12 ft) while female -- "male" and "female" should agree in number
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Maldives, male M. alfredi mature at a width of 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) while female mature at 3 m (9.8 ft) -- the way this sentence is constructed, the singular "female" doesn't work; try phrasing with "respectively" instead
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Female mantas mature appear to mature at 8–10 years -- extra "mature"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the same adult female has been seen since 1989, implying that manta rays can live for fifty years or longer -- the numbers don't add up: mature at 10 yrs + 24 yrs since 1989 = age of 35 yrs
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colons should be used in Swimming behavior in mantas differs across habitats; and These leaps come in three forms
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individuals in a group may make aerial jumps in succession -- each individual in the group jumps in turn, or a single individual makes a series of jumps?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fish that have been fitted with radio transmitters have traveled as far as 1,000 km (620 mi) from where they were caught -- since this seems to be tracking data, is that 1000 km a straight-line distance?
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • has recently entered traditional Chinese medicine practices -- it's not exactly traditional if it's recent
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By way of comparison -- just "by comparison" would be sufficient
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • or death if the wound is severe enough -- suggest "which may lead to death if the wound is severe enough"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • by disrupting ecological relationships and through the transmission of diseases -- suggest "increasing disease transmission"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the prose is fair, albeit somewhat choppy with lots of short sentences. As I mentioned, better use of commas would improve its readability. -- Yzx (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to support now. There are still some comma usage improvements/prose streamlining that can be made, but not enough to oppose on. I appreciate the nominators' diligence. -- Yzx (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cwmhiraeth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (Flickr, own work, PLOS, NOAA). Sources and authors provided.

From "Relation to humans", subsection "Aquariums", paragraph 2: "The birth of the first manta ray in captivity took place there in 2007." An edit by Lfstevens has left the statement ambiguous. It is unclear if the manta ray was the first ever captive manta ray, or if its birth was the first birth in captivity. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their slow reproductive rate amplifies these threats. - "amplifies" sounds weird used like this, yet I agree it is a good fit. : "Potentiates" is more logical but less accessible. "Worsens" simple but does not quite carry the sense of it....I can't really think of a better word so not a deal-breaker per se.
Don't like that. "Augment" is usually used in a context of a good thing, which this definitely isn't. What about "exacerbates"? -- Yzx (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I like "exacerbates" too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Physical appearance and anatomy - "Physical" is redundant here - what other types of appearance are there....?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manta rays have many common names including Atlantic manta, Pacific manta and devilfish. The name "manta" is Spanish for cloak or blanket, a type of blanket-shaped trap traditionally used to catch rays.[3] The name "devilfish" derives from the horn-shaped cephalic fins that give the ray an "evil" appearance - the first sentence is partly redundant (as devilfish and manta are explained in the next two sentences) - if the geographic names don't correspond to species..were they originally names for forms or what? I think they may be best removed or else moved to after the two sentences on meaning. This para is a bit slim - surely there are some other vernacular names or bits to add to it?
Fixed and I do not see a problem with a slim opening paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The skin is covered in mucus which protects it from infection - has this been studied? Is it just a barrier or does it have antibiotic properties?
Source does not say but it does not appear to be unusual for fish or other vertebrates according to the main article. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FAir enough - I don't know much about marine biology. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright otherwise - I agree with Yzx's note about some sentences being on the short side. I will have another read through later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - was looking for some glaringly short sentences and failed to find any deal-breakers left prosewise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript - I am wondering whether the material on mythology/folklore/pop culture is a bit slim - I would have thought there was more out there. I did see this but some better sourcing would be in order maybe as I can't find else about it. Not a deal-breaker as alot of this material is debated..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that reference qualifies as a reliable source and I couldn't find another. "Manta Rays in Popular Culture" is pretty wishy-washy and not much help either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agree, which is why this isn't a deal-breaker for my support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry has asked me to spotcheck the references so here goes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sepkoski: A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. The hyperlink doesn't seem to be working at the moment. Perhaps the website is down.

I replaced it. LittleJerry (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Dean: The evolution of cranial design, diet, and feeding mechanisms in batoid fishes. Due to my Wikipedia skin setting, I am not able to view the phylogeny tree. The second statement is supported by the source.

6. Froese: Family Myliobatidae – Eagle and manta rays. The source does not mention superorder Batoidea. The rest of the information is verified in the source.

Added cite that supports Batodiea.

13. ITIS: Manta birostris (Walbaum, 1792). The source mentions the surname (Walbaum) but does not state the full name (Johann Julius Walbaum).

Well Johann Julius Walbaum seems to be the only Walbum would was a taxonomist and the source is meant to confirm his authority on the species, not his full name. LittleJerry (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, the source is supposed to able to verify the information in the text. In this case, that includes his full name and the source does not do that. I found this reference which includes his full name and indicates his interest in the taxonomy of fish, although it doesn't actually mention birostris. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When in taxonomic doubt, try the original source. Here's Walbaum's Petri Artedi sueci genera piscium, where the species was described. His full name's on the cover, and birostris is on page 535. -- Yzx (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, removed the first and middle name. The original source cannot be used for the statement "The specific name birostris is ascribed to Walbaum (1792) by some authorities". LittleJerry (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here, the entry from Catalog of Fishes that describes the attribution to both Donndorff and Walbaum, with relevant citations. Seems silly to remove an obviously true fact like the guy's name. -- Yzx (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20. Cicimurri: Late Oligocene sharks and rays from the Chandler Bridge Formation. The information is verified in the source.

25. Ari: Encephalization and brain organization of mobulid rays. This information is verified in the source. (Interestingly, I also discovered in the source that Manta birostris has the largest brain size of any fish.)

28. Marshall: Reproductive ecology of the reef manta ray Manta alfredi in southern Mozambique. I only have access to the abstract so I am unable to verify the first statement. The second statement is verified in the abstract.

31. Marshall: Biology and Population Ecology of Manta Birostris in Southern Mozambique. This PhD thesis requires a University of Queensland login to download, so I am not able to verify the statements. The first statement, from "Biology", subsection "Lifecycle", paragraph 2 is: "In southern Africa M. birostris matures at 4 m (13 ft) while females reach maturity slightly over that." Does the first half of the sentence refer to males?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

38. Manta Trust: Manta fisheries. With the first statement, the source describes the meat as "grainy" or "sandy" rather than "tough". The second statement is verified in the source although the source actually mentions more places than listed in the statement.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

43. Convention on Migratory Species: COP10 Outcome. The source verifies the statement.

48. Georgia Aquarium: About Nandi. The source indicates that mantas are rare in captivity, but doesn't actually say that this is due to their size. (This is arguably self-evident.) More importantly, this source could be used as a reference for the subsequent statements that are actually about Nandi. The source used for those statements is said to be the homepage of Henry F. Mollet, although the information in the source was collected by Filipe Pereira. While the information in the source looks plausible, I am not convinced that it should be regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards.

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References 48 & 49 are actually the same source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservation issues", subsection "Status", paragraph 2 uses the same reference throughout. Rather than repeating the inline citation every sentence or two, would it be reasonable to use a single citation at the end of the paragraph? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Pls check dup links and see if any are really necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Manta_ray/archive1&oldid=1075160910"