Talk:Electric eel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Starting this review with MGMT stuck in my head. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Shades of Easy Rider... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• Infobox image needs a caption
  • "Electric eel" would just repeat the infobox title...
    • Perhaps Electrophorus electricus at the New England Aquarium?
      • Ingenious, but this isn't the place for Latin, the Aquarium is not a necessary fact for the topic as a whole (and it could look like advertising), and the species is in doubt as it might be any of the three.
        • Sorry, but I'm going to insist here - I don't believe the image is sufficiently self-explanatory. (I will note that the majority of your animal group GAs have captions for the infobox image.) An electric eel in an aquarium would be sufficient if you wish to avoid both the Latin name and the institution name. Since most captions for groups do identify the exact species (which, I note the Commons file page claims to), it might be worth noting that the species is not known.
          • Done.
• "Neotropical" is capitalized in one instance, but not another - this should be consistent.
  • Fixed.
• I'd suggest lengthening the lede by a sentence or two to summarize the physiology section.
  • Done.

Species

• The first sentence is run-on and should be modified or split in two.
  • Done.
• No need to have redlinks for all the authors - few if any are likely to have articles written.
  • Removed.
    • Looks like there's still a second line of redlinks.
      • Done.
• Wikilink "dentary bone" and "cleithrum"
  • Linked.

Distribution

• Most of the caption should be moved into prose - it's strange to have a section with an image but no prose.
  • Done.

Research history

• "so unusual" is a bit of weasel wording - I'd like to see a citation supporting that claim of unusual-ity.
  • Removed.
• Any indication when Electrophoridae was created and dissolved?
  • Added.

Physiology

• The organization of this section is a bit confusing. I'd suggest defining the purposes of the three organs before going into the chemical details.
  • Edited.
• The last two sentences of the next-to-last paragraph pertain mostly to research, so they should probably be moved to the research section.
  • Moved.
• No need for five citations for the final sentence; I'd cut out some of the non-academic cites.
  • Removed.

Interactions with humans

• Is an academic source available for the shocks rarely being fatal?
  • I've removed this; it seems to have been based at least partly on Catania 2017 so I've used that instead.
• Unless there's material to substantially expand it, I would recommend removing this section and moving the information to other sections: shock effects to physiology, artificial cells to research, and remove Miguel Wattson as trivia.
  • Done.

The rest

• Standardize date formats across references - I see a few yyyy-mm-dd and mdy among the dmy majority.
  • Done.
• Ten items of further reading is a lot for an article of this size. Could some of these be used to expand the prose instead?
  • Good idea, done, and removed the rest.
• Add links to Commons category and Wikispecies
  • Added.
• Add alt text for images
  • Done.

Pi.1415926535 all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There are still two comments above to address (caption and redlinks). Additionally, the "modern research" section should be a subsection under "Research history". I believe that should be sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Done that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535

Pi.1415926535 - done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, happy to pass now. Good work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)