Talk:Japanese sleeper ray
 | Japanese sleeper ray 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: January 1, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese sleeper ray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- December is always a slow month for GAs, so I'll review this one as well, since everyone else seems to be busy. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- "as part of Fauna Japonica" Perhaps add ", a book about Japanese zoology", or some such.
- Specified it as "a series of monographs on Japanese zoology"
- "some rays are plain, while others have dark or light spots over their dorsal" Any reason why? And maybe "rays" should be "specimens/individuals" instead?
- Changed to "individuals". I haven't encountered any explanation as to why.
- "Off the Izu Peninsula, it has been reported from 12–23 m (39–75 ft) deep." "In depth" instead of merely "deep"?
- Changed.
- "Though little specific data are available" Is available?
- "Data" is plural.
- Seems to be a bit more complicated than that: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is some recent debate, but I'm going to adhere to established scientific convention. -- Yzx (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Some taxonomists believe that the sleeper torpedo (Crassinarke dormitor) may be conspecific with the Japanese sleeper ray.[6]" On what grounds?
- Explained as "their morphology is virtually identical".
Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looks good, and it appears the data issue is somewhat optionable. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)