Talk:Electroreception and electrogenesis

Electroreception and electrogenesis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 5, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Electroreception and electrogenesis is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows a couple of spots that are probably a bit of close paraphrasing - see here for things that should probably be fixed.
- Done.

Lead:
- "weakly electric fish" and "strongly electric fish" ... what makes a fish weakly or strongly electric?
  - Added a sentence of explanation.

History:
- Suggest "While doing dissections of sharks in 1678 the Italian physician Stefano Lorenzini discovered organs on their heads"
  - Done.

Passive electrolocation:
- "jelly-filled canal leading from the sensory receptors to the skin surface" is there a name for these? I wouldn't have the slightest idea what to link to.. heh.
  - Ampullae of Lorenzini are the commonest kind. Added.

Active electrolocation:
- link for quasi-sinusoidal or description?
  - Linked.
- Source(s) for "These fish create a potential usually smaller than one volt (1 V). Weakly electric fish can discriminate between objects with different resistance and capacitance values, which may help in identifying objects. Active electroreception typically has a range of about one body length, though objects with an electrical impedance similar to that of the surrounding water are nearly undetectable."
  - Done.
- Suggest merging the paragraph starting "Elephantfish emit short pulses to locate their prey" with the previous paragraph
  - Done.

The paraphrasing and the citation are going to need to be fixed for GA status, the others are not required but would be nice.
- Done all of them.

Good job, you managed to make this mostly comprehensible to this non-biologist, with the context being mostly clear enough for me to get the general thrust of things even if the exact details were perhaps not quite comprehended (but ... that's because I didn't try to comprehend all the tiny details of some of this - which is as it should be - the details were there and I got the general notion of everything, I just chose not to engage further on the provided details)
- Thank you!

(Total aside and not a thing you can "fix" but dang, having all those little thumbnail pics in the Evolution and taxonomy section makes checking illustrations for GA a PITA - it' REALLY ups the numbers of images... heh.)
- Yes, a phylo tree is either one image or lots and lots, depending on how you look at it!

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done to date, and replied to each item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Earwigs is clear! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]