Talk:Bluntnose stingray

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've signed up to review this one. Comments to follow in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Sasata (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• in the lead, how about links for keel, tubercles, benthic

Added for tubercle and benthic; there isn't really an appropriate article for keel as used here (i.e. "low ridge of skin").

• "This species is aplacental viviparous with maternal provisioning of the young via histotroph ("uterine milk")." Since it's the lead, might it be possible to simply the language here?

Rephrased

• "…has assessed this species as of Least Concern, as it is widely distributed…" maybe that first "as" should be removed?

Rephrased

• "Recently, there has been a push for using the correct original spelling again." for using->to use

Done

• "the anterior disc shape distinguishes this species from the similar Atlantic stingray (D. sabina)." how so?

Note added

• "are arranged with a quincunx pattern into pavement-like surfaces." Not quite getting the comparison to pavement… like asphalt or concrete? Like pavement because it's hard and durable, or it's black, because it can sustain plastic deformation… ?

"Pavement" is something of a standard word for describing stingray teeth arrangement; I've changed it to "flattened"

• new word of the day: quincunx
• "…bears one or two long, serrated stinging spines on top." Where on the whip tail are the spines located? Any significance to the number being variable?

Added info on spine position and explanation of the second spine

• what's the total length? Weight? How much larger are the females?

Couldn't find any maximum weight information. Total length is seldom recorded for stingrays because the tail is so often damaged. Disc width is the standard measurement for size. Since growth rates differ between individuals and across ages, there probably isn't a simple way to explain the sex size difference. The difference in maturation size between males and females is a reasonable indicator.

• link substrate, embryonic development

Done

• what's the advantage of embryonic diapause?

Added a theory

• any info on the composition of the venom? Is it unique to this species? Would like to know a bit more about how the venom is used for research.

I couldn't find any details on this

• does anybody eat the creature?

I'd guess that it may be eaten by some artisanal fishers, but if so this usage does not seem to be significant

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Article looks good to me. One final thing: when checking refs, I saw the following paper, and based on the abstract, it looks like it's worthy of mention. Sasata (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Title: Raja say Le Sueur, 1817 (currently Dasyatis say; Chondrichthyes, Myliobatiformes, DASYATIDAE): proposed change of spelling to Raja sayi Le Sueur, 1817
• Author(s): Secloso Santos, Hugo Ricardo; de Carvalho, Marcelo Rodrigues
• Source: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Volume: 65 Issue: Part 2 Pages: 119-123 Published: JUN 30 2008

Thanks! I've noted the info from above. -- Yzx (talk) 19:02, 26 February 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):

   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.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bluntnose stingray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714034608/http://www.marineparasitology.com/Papers/Palm%20et.%20al.%202007.pdf to http://www.marineparasitology.com/Papers/Palm%20et.%20al.%202007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221080809/http://www.usm.edu/gcrl/file_dump/New%20genus%20with%20two%20new%20species%20of%20capsalid%20monogeneans.pdf to http://www.usm.edu/gcrl/file_dump/New%20genus%20with%20two%20new%20species%20of%20capsalid%20monogeneans.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)