Talk:Marbled electric ray
 | Marbled electric 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| 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:Marbled electric ray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let's go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
found in the coastal waters of the western Atlantic Ocean from the North Sea to South Africa- sounds like it refers to the family and not the ray as written. Maybe add "that is" in between two clauses for flow.- Added.
- Aargh - trying to read through it, actually I think that made it worse - I think scans best without any comma at all and original wording. Anyway, all looks good.
- Added.
The paired electric organs of the marbled electric ray are capable of producing 70–80 volts of electricity.- I'd move this sentence to adjoin the other material on electricity in the lead. It looks odd being mentioned in two different bits- Moved.
In the Distribution and habitat section, when you say "northern UK" I presume it means "Scotland" (?) - I think if it is Scotland then saying so might be more accessible for readers.- Changed.
I'd link "physiological"- Done.
- I'd mention in the lead that it uses electricity for hunting
- The lead does mention it (?)
- ack. sorry, my bad, must have missed it first read through. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The lead does mention it (?)
- I'd mention in the lead that it uses electricity for hunting
Otherwise looking pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 01:51, 14 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: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. -- Yzx (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)