Talk:Diamond stingray

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• lead: link/define tubercles

linked

• any chance that either/both of the 1880 publications are online and could be linked?

added refs, found a Google Book link for one of them

• "…making dipterurus (feminine dipterura) the correct name." maybe mention why it's the correct name (i.e. the priority of earlier publication)

note added

• "However, when Garman synonymized the two in 1913…" How about citing the 1913 publication?

added

• "Rat-tailed stingray is a former common name for this species." did this name go out of fashion?

apparently so, since it's not used anymore

• "Lisa Rosenberger's 2001 phylogenetic analysis, based on morphology," I don't quite understand, was there any molecular work involved? Did the analysis combine both DNA analysis (and if so, what was sequenced) and traditional morphological characters?

the study used only morphological characters

Huh! I was under the mistaken impression (based largely on readings from the fungal literature) that phylogenetics needed to involve "genetics". With fungi (more specifically, mushrooms) character traits aren't used as much in this fashion because mushroom morphology is often variable depending on the environment. Learn something new every day I guess. Sasata (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it's a bit misleading. "Phylogenetics" is derived from "phylogeny", which uses the same Greek root as "gene" but in a different context. -- Yzx (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• "There is strong segregation by sex and age." Wouldn't this be better placed in the Biology and ecology section? (Unless the segregation is specifically related to habitat and distribution, in which case I'd like to see more details)

moved

• "As a result of these pressures, have led the IUCN to assess it as Near Threatened in Mexican waters." fix prose

fixed

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, meets all GA criteria. FYI, you might want to use the JSTOR template for instances like ref #20; just add the parameter id=JSTOR 3274623 in the cite template. Sasata (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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):

   Well-cited to reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Compares with other other shark/stingray GAs.

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 appropriately licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: