Talk:Porcupine ray/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll begin review now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

30 m (98 ft) - better to say 100 ft here.

Fixed.

Aha, nice to see the "-1" parameter - will remember it for next time....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

asperrimus is actually Latin superlative meaning "roughest" or "very rough"...but don't sweat it if we can't get a reference stating that (i.e. only go in if ref, otherwise don't lose sleep over it)

The entire original description is in Latin, so would that represent a translation and thus not OR?

hmmm, I guess luckily the fact that it is a superlative is obvious and uncontroversial to anyone who's studied Latin, so I think we're fine on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There may be more than one species of porcupine ray, as is currently recognized - whoa, any further info in the source to add as to why this is thought so? Can it be added?

This one's tricky. The sentence is a one-off mention in Smiths' Sea Fishes. There is a species Urogymnus laevior described by Annandale in 1909, but there are only two modern sources that even mention it: Michael (1993) assumes it's a second species, and it appears in a 2002 single checklist of Thai elasmobranchs. The vast majority of literature doesn't acknowledge it, nor does it appear as either a valid species or a synonym in FishBase or other databases. I debated what to do about this, because there aren't any sources that talk about the taxonomic validity of U. laevior at all. I ended up leaving it out for now. -- Yzx (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I think how you've phrased it is the most accurate way to have done so with the sources at hand. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Any other information on why they are in their own genus would be good to add (just the lack of a stinging tail?)

I don't have Müller and Henle's publication where they proposed Gymnura, but that was probably a factor.

Ok you do what you can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Otherwsie looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 22:22, 11 May 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:

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)