Jump to content

Talk:Spotted eagle ray

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSpotted eagle 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 10, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
November 28, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Florida death

[edit]

Whoever keeps changing the entry to say the spotted eagle ray has "murdered" a woman, please stop. StocktonDan (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Dan[reply]

Yea what is with someone adding about this killing a woman-- who cares. This is not important and wouldn't be in a dictionary. foozy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foozy101 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Err, wikipedia isn't a dictionary....Anyway, whilst it is ludircrous t suggest the ray "murdered" someone, as if any animal can "murder" somone. Isn't it worth mentioning the incident, even if it was an accident? hedpeguyuk 10:54 22nd March 2008 (UTC)

To be Blunt, no its not. If you can find out how it helps people better know the spotted eagle ray, and make a legitimate argument, we'll talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StocktonDan (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old conversation but it is 100% worth mentioning any deaths caused by the animal. Lots of animal pages include sections on conflicts with people and incidents involving death. It's definitely relevant and informational about the species. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. A dictionary definition wouldn't talk about the species being kept in aquaria nor the conservation, but on Wikipedia we do because it is factual information on the species. BronxZooFan (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is this trying to say?

[edit]

"In the West-Pacific Ocean, it can be found from the Red Sea in South Africa to northern Japan and Australia." The Red Sea isn't in South Africa. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's found many places. Easier to show on map then explain http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/39415/0/rangemap Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will consult with my partner about the confusion and see exactly what she is trying to say about their habitat. It should be fixed by tonight. Thanks! --UND77 (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what happened there. I will go fix that right away! Marissa927 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for editing our articles for the AP biology project. We all really appreciate your help and patience. How do I put a FlickR picture onto the article? Do I take the htm link, or take a special format, or upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Again, thank you very much for your help. --UND77 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:FLICKR. Images that meet strict criteria can be uploaded from flickr to Wikimedia Commons and then once on commons they become available for use on Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Predator great hammerhead

[edit]

http://www.webcitation.org/62jL55XOE A FURTHER OBSERVATION OF THE PREY-HANDLING BEHAVIOR OF THE GREAT HAMMERHEAD SHARK , SPHYRNA MOKARRAN : PREDATION UPON THE SPOTTED EAGLE RAY , AETOBATUS NARINARI by Demian D Chapman, Samuel H Gruber, Bulletin of Marine Science (2002), Volume: 70, Issue: 3, Pages: 947-952, ISSN: 00074977. Found on Great hammerhead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that! It will be a great resource! Marissa927 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping it makes a sentence or two in the predators section. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It will, I'm going to work on that tonight! That article has great information. Thanks! Marissa927 (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour

[edit]

A couple of comments after reading a bit on behaviour. Is all the info in this passage from the same source? In that case there is no real problem. But maybe GA reviewer will ask you to show that more clearly. I don't know how that should be done. I also note a lack of wikilinks. That is also comparatively easy to add later. --Ettrig (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll go and add the links. I believe my partner cleaned up the references. Thank you!Marissa927 (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Parent with Pup?

[edit]

We recently observed one large eagle ray followed by a much smaller one (one meter versus 1 foot, about). They came in straight for the rocks, swam back and forth along them, and then swam straight out again, the whole episode lasting about 5 minutes, always less than one meter under the surface, and the small one always precisely the same distance, estimated 2 meters behind the larger one. Was it a parent with a pup? This is undocumented, but I wonder what sort of evidence there is for parenting behavior, and it should be posted here if there is any.AtomAnt (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More refs

[edit]

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you very much! I'll have a look at all of them. Marissa927 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

defenseless to sharks because of their short stingers

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spotted_eagle_ray&diff=next&oldid=456620436. Why this without a reference, it just seems incorrect. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated to removed the sentence now and added back previous cited sentence. A bit confused what happened. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, im not sure about that. Does it still need a reference? Or are you saying it is fixed now? Im sorry Im a bit confused. Id be happy to fix what I can...Marissa927 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add information not matching cited ref

[edit]

"The spotted eagle ray has a flat disc shaped body. The body is unlike a sharks, being very broad and thick. It is a blue black or black color and has white spots or rings on the top side. The underbelly is white. These rays have a flat snout, similar to that of a duck bill. The tail is relatively long when compared to the body. Their pectoral discs are long and wing-like. The barbed stingers are located just behind the pelvic fins. The sting ray has 5 gills, located in the front of the pectoral disc." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spotted_eagle_ray&action=historysubmit&diff=457756922&oldid=457746161 Where does that come from? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had several sources during the description...I'll take a second look and find out how to clean it up! Thanks! Marissa927 (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human story

[edit]

Jumping out of water. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/20/stingray/ Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have heard several cases of this, and I was going to look it up! Ill put that under human interactions! Thanks! Marissa927 (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

[edit]

Great job being done here! There is more on the spots in the lead than in description paragraph. It should be the other way around. Maybe just exchange the texts. One spot is marked citation needed. Needs to be taken care of. I will read on, but it seems that this article should be a GA candidate very soon. There is an article on es:Puerto Pizarro in the Spanish wikipedia. Maybe you can make at least a partial translation. It would also be nice with a map that shows where this fish is found. --Ettrig (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the advice. I'll go look at the info on spots. As for the citation needed areas, I've been working on cleaning that up. I still have a few left, but I'll get right on it! For the translation, do I put the translated info on this page? Im a bit confused on what you mean. And I'm glad to hear you think it has a GA possibility. That is a goal Ive had in mind! Marissa927 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My hope was for a small (stub) article on Puerto Pizarro, to make the read link blue. This is not required for GA, but would be very nice. Is there a way to ascertain that the Spanish article is about the place mentioned in this ray article? (We should know what is meant by what we write.) --Ettrig (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Puerto Pizarro is a bit specific for such a wide range, see range map. It could say Peru or maybe Tumbes, thing is, it doesn't have the same detail for other coastlines maybe because the source for the text is Americian. So it can be argued the text is WP:BIASed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view it falls short of being a B-class yet, certainly fails WP:LEAD, and text in part is unbalanced and is not well written. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on need to improve the lead. Any more instructions? Marissa seem to be willing to work diligently on this. --Ettrig (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also that the lead is the weakest part of my article. I have been trying to make it include information and yet not be repetitive. I wasn't sure what kinds of information needed to be up there. Is it a brief summary with bits of information from each section? Marissa927 (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a summarize of the body of the article with appropriate weight. Everything in the lead as a summary has to be elsewhere in the article. Much of the current lead is not a summary but unique information that likely wants to be moved to the body. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could SunCreator please point out what major parts are still missing? It is somewhat easier to write the lead when the body is near completion. Otherwise the lead will need to be rewritten when the body changes. --Ettrig (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the lead shouldn't be in the lead as it's contents is NOT in the body. Pretty much everything but the first part of the first sentence. So far as I can tell the contents of the lead where sourced wants to move into the body. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the sentences from the lead to body, most of it is now requiring citations and marked accordingly. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help on the lead. I would have fixed it first, but I have just been to a computer since school let out! The help is great. Ill go and fix the citations. Marissa927 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improved my perception of the article with the recent addition of those citations. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The citation needed marks helped me figure out where they needed to be. Without them I wouldn't have known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa927 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

[edit]

"A great hammerhead shark has been observed attacking a spotted eagle ray in open water by taking a large bite out of one of its pectoral fins. This incapacitated the ray and the shark used its head to pin the ray to the bottom and pivoted to take the ray in its jaws head-first."

I have seen this line in my article several times and I have deleted it, but it keeps coming back. I know i read it somewhere else and when I searched it, it came up almost exactly. I can get the blame for any plagiarism on this article, so please if you edit, paraphrase and reword, or at least use quotes! Thank you! Marissa927 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the original source of these two sentences? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it's not a plagarism as the cited original text (p.949) covers it. Most likely you are looking at a WP:FORK or copy of Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Great_hammerhead http://wn.com/Great_Hammerhead_Shark http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Great_hammerhead::sub::Biology_And_Ecology All these sources are almost verbatim, and many others. I just wanted to make sure people knew, because this could cause me many problems at school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa927 (talk • contribs)

Those three pages each say some content is from Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i will revert the edit. I just really want to be careful. Mr. Butler has warned us several times about the consequences of plagiarism. Thank you for letting me know. Marissa927 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just plagiarism Marissa, but a trap I've also fallen into. There are so many web sites now, and even books, mirroring Wikipedia content that it's very easy to get into a positive reinforcement cycle. I've found myself doing it, even once citing something in a book taken from my Wikipedia article in my Wikipedia article! We're none of us perfect, not even me; we're all of us learning. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found several sources citing my article, and almost did as you said, and cited myself. We are indeed all learning. Marissa927 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"cough", "cough", "Puerto Pizarro", "cough". Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I go work on that article too? My teacher said just translate, but if you think I should do something different?Marissa927 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Range Map

[edit]

I know I need a range map, but I'm not sure how to do it . I have a map I would like to use, but I don't know if I need a copyright form or how to put it in. It isn't from wiki commons, so I'm not sure what to do... Marissa927 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this, but I think some of your predecessors have drawn maps themselves. Maybe you can ask in class for pointers to tools. --Ettrig (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have made a request. The map on http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/39415/0 can be used as a source, and attributed but you can't copy/paste the picture. It wants to be transposed onto a blank map, like the one on the right or similar. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll add it as soon as it's ready! Marissa927 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existing map File:Spotted_Eagle_Ray_Range_Map.jpg contains no sources or attribution and is therfore likely a copyright violation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We made the range map, so how should I go about citing that? Marissa927 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite certain what the bee is in SunCreator's bonnet Marissa, but there are two potential issues with the map:
  1. What image is it derived from?
  2. What is the source for the range information it displays?
Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Derived from the map on the right and likely using the source posted a few lines above. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then can't you just add that information to the image and its caption? Or am I missing something? Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the creator of the content or the one claiming 'Own work', nor am I sure of the source(s). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well the map we got the information from was the map on the IUCN Red List website. So I will just go and make that the citation. That should fix the problem, I hope! Marissa927 (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do

[edit]

I (still) think this article is close to GA. A few things are needed though: (1) A summary of the article in the lead. (2) Wikilinks (3) Distribution map. It doesn't need to be very fancy. Maybe talk to the Quoll writers. --Ettrig (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's still a way from GA yet. I'm making some observations at the article's peer review page, so don't go rushing at GAN, as I guarantee the article would fail. GA is a very substantial achievement in its own right, it's not something awarded easily. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not B-class yet, per WP:LEAD. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is easily fixed once the rest of the problems are fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW. Alt text isn't a requirement for GA. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember now. Still, a simple thing to add. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I believe the range map is okay now. Do you think I should leave it in the taxo box or put it in the Habitat and Distribution Section? I'll go work on the lead some more, and I'm working on everything mentioned on the Peer Review Page. As for the alt text, I'm not sure I really get what that means. And the wikilinks I can get right on, that shouldn't be too hard. Marissa927 (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the map! Wikipedia:Alternative text for images is text about an image that is intended to supply context for a reader that does not see the image. This is valuable for readers who cannot see, either because their equipment doesn't handle images or because the reader herself is generally unable to see. As MF says above, this is not required for GA. --Ettrig (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you! I will try and fix that. But because it is not required I'm going to work on the other things first. Thank you about the range map! Marissa927 (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is repeated?

[edit]

The slanted jump is repeated and the vertical is not, right? In the current formulation, the word this is slightly ambiguous. --Ettrig (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go make that more clear. Thank you! Marissa927 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher Review

[edit]

A few things that I might note, most are minor and some are opinion which you have the option to disregard. Note when you have addressed them - I will then strike through the concerns.--JimmyButler (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

  • Gulf of Mexico, Hawaii, Atlantic Africa, the Indian Ocean, Oceania, and the Pacific west coast of the Americas. - This contradicts later discussion that states it is found off the eastern US as well. Also – not certain but is Atlantic Africa, an appropriate description of that side of the Atlantic?
done
The link describes Atlantic Africa as Western Africa, I'm certain that the ray is not terrestrial. Either we need the name for the Atlantic Ocean at that point or we need to say "off the coast of".
done, I think it makes more sense now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa927 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the back of the ray, there are several venomous, barbed stingers. Use appropriate anatomical terms. Is the use of back referring to dorsal as in posterior or perhaps a combination of both?
done
  • 2.5 to 3 times the length of the ray's body. This contradicts the description section that follows.
done
  • The spotted eagle ray develops ovoviviparously (the embryo feeds off of a yolk sac until birth). Actually, Oviparous also feed off a yolk sac – until they hatch. Perhaps mention that said eggs are retained in the mother’s body for a better understanding.
done
Made some changes ... followup to access my damages to that section!--JimmyButler (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • The spotted eagle ray was first described by Swedish botanist Bengt Anders Euphrasén as Raja narinari in 1790 while he was on a naturalist trip to the Antilles, and later as Stoasodon narinari. In context, one would assume that the Swed, opted to later re-classify. Is that the case or was it changed much later as information emerged. If so, was the second taxonomic grouping the only alternate besides the original. If not – then why mention the second and not the others?
I know those were the only two names it had before the current Aetobatus Narinari. As for who classified the second name, I can't find it. It seems to be implied that it is the same person maybe? Marissa927 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spotted eagle ray belongs to the Myliobatidae family, …(fun fact – giving relevance to a boring old taxonic grouping)… which includes the widely recognized Manta Ray.
done
  • ...or the white-spotted eagle ray. Why is this mentioned in the introduction while the endless list of other common names are not. Is it more official than the other alternatives?
done
Great class discussion on pros and cons of common names, thank you.--JimmyButler (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mature spotted eagle rays can be up to 5 meters (16 ft)…is it ok to round off in such a conversion? Maybe? This however is just incorrect: 230 kilograms (510 lb)
done

Reproduction

  • Grab dorsum – insert clasper and press your venters together. Yep I get it. Linking key terms is ok … if you want to lose your reader. I often thought to write an article in which all nouns are linked. Perhaps a brief description (clasper, a modified pelvic fin used to transfer sperm directly into the female).
I tried to fix as much as I could, should I go try to simplify it more?
  • their discs measure from 6.7-13.8 inches across… screw the brits and their metric system!
done(Malleus came and helped with conversions)
He would, being a Brit and all.... you want to really piss him off correct those British mis-spellings.--JimmyButler (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll stay on his good side for now. Marissa927 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding

  • They feed on mollusks and crustaceans, particularly malacostracans and preys mainly upon bivalves, shrimps, crabs, whelks, and other benthic infauna. and also feed upon hermit crabs, shrimp, octopi, and some small fish. Combine the sentence to avoid confusing and redundancy.
done
See below, where IP addressed this concern.
  • have several distinctive behaviors, including digging with their snouts in the sand of the ocean''. Why state several and only describe one? What makes it distinctive… do other rays not so this?
The other distinctive features are listed after I describe the digging, they are the different types of jumps/pelvic thrusts. Marissa927 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are in a different section of the article. (they have several distinctive behaviors), 'located in the feeding section'. I'm ok with the other (they have several distinctive behaviors) mentioned in the behavior section. .
done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa927 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Studies have shown that there are no differences in the feeding habits of males and females or in rays from different regions This one is a problem. One study on a specific group of Rays in Australia in which you have now modified the context to include rays throughout the world. “Twisting of data is bad...very bad!
done
different regions surrounding Australia and Taiwan; my analysis of the study is it is limited to just this area... not the world-wide population.
done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa927 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jaws have calcified struts coating them to prevent hard shells from denting the jaws. vs. The hard prey crushing stingrays have extra mineralization in the jaws in the form of thin calcified struts that support the tooth-bearing surface and prevent hard prey from denting the jaws. I don’t agree with you re-phrasing of the original statement. This happens when you data mine… without any understanding of the content you are adding!
I tried to fix it. Would you read it and see if its better?Marissa927 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still not sure if we have grabbed the significance of the struts. Is it the strut or the extra calcium that makes it so hard. I'll strike it for now.
  • The movement of these rays is influenced by the tides. I would clarify if this is migratory or more likely “daily movement”.
done
  • The common school consists of six or more rays swimming in the same direction at exactly the same speed. I read the article, frankly there was a wealth of information on behavior there, I however saw no reference to “common school” was that intended to be a category or just meaning more frequent?
I just meant that it was more frequent. Should I clarify. Marissa927 (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human interaction

  • 8 feet wide with a 10-foot-long tail…. metric?
done
  • 80 meters (260 ft). actually 262.467 what is the rule here?
done
  • off the coast of North Carolina and Florida, Do they swim around Georgia and South Carolina?
done
  • Fun Facts: Did you know that once the yolk sac is absorbed the developing rays are nourished by villi that cover the uterine walls of the female… wow almost viviparous! Did you know they emit a loud harsh sound when struggling in a net. It sounds like HEEEEELLLLLP. well maybe not the last part. Also their buccal papilla allow them to sort out the shell fragments from the bodies of the bivalves they crush… nearly no shell in stomach content… cool yes I have one of those... but I call it my tongue. They can destroy an entire clam bed in less than a week and wreak havoc on pearl beds! Ask any North Carolina clammer... the only good ray is a dead ray. They are rarely found farther than a mile or two from land... maybe you had that it there... not sure. The wounds from the barbs are said to be excruciating!!!!!! Alas there spines are close to their tail so they cannot lash them about as effectively as other rays. Oh the horror .. gangrene - limb amputation... cool stuff.
  • My concern is are there other such facts out there that have been over-looked. If so, you will be pummeled in the FA for not meeting the criteria of well-researched!
  • Referencing. My weakest area. The references seemed to check out and were suitably scientific. However, I am certain they will not pass muster with SandyGeorgia. I know you have issues with what constitutes bibliography status. My suggestion is look through the policy manual, clean up what you can and then and ONLY THEN seek help from someone.

Wow - this is work.... I should have just dumped this tedious process on the community... my last Wiki Education Project for sure! --JimmyButler (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks Mr. Butler! I'll get working on these. Marissa927 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help you pad that portfolio! Keep up the excellent work.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, I'll definitely keep working. I really want the GA. I'm anxiously waiting for a review to start. Oh, and I believe I fixed all the concerns in the introduction. Marissa927 (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal and just go with what the consensus is, but I much prefer 260 feet to 262.467. The extra digits are distracting to the reader and the extra precision is not justified or helping us understand more. I advocate "rough" significant figures. IOW 2 meters -> 6 feet (for length of a snake). The only reason I say rough...is sometimes it just looks better with a deviation of 1 less or 1 more (and does not obscure the meaning)69.255.27.249 (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding paragraph needs a little restructuring. you talk about what they eat, then the teeth for mollusk biting, then more what they eat, then jaws for mollusk biting. My advice is to restructure it so you have like with like. I think you just sort of went in source order, but really writing the article to better combine things moves you further from plagiarism (naturally) and is just easier on the reader when he has strong organization.

Make two paragraphs. the first on what they eat. The second on all the jaw/teeth structures for mollusk biting. Will work well with the extra sentence Jimmy is pushing on you as well for that jaw structure.69.255.27.249 (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps organized by taxonomic grouping Spotted eagle ray preys mainly upon mollusk, such as bivalves, whelk and octopi. The ray's specialized chevron-shaped tooth structure helps it to crush the mollusks' hard shells. They also feed on crustaceans, such as shrimp and crab. In some areas they feed on hermit crabs, which live in the abandon shell of mollusk. Rays also consume small fish as well as a variety of benthic infauna.
This organizes their feeding based on taxonomic grouping; a topic we have yet to reach in class.--JimmyButler (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unit Conversion

[edit]

I have some units in meters, and some in inches and feet. Should I convert it all to metric system? Marissa927 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For a science article, do metric first, with English units in parentheses. I advise the same in other parts of Wikipedia except for topics like US history, US geography, etc. where the main usage is English units. (In that case have the metric in parentheses.)69.255.27.249 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Create an account, every set of eyes is valued!--JimmyButler (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Spotted eagle ray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 16:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Hi, looks pretty good, and I see malleus has been through too. A couple of points at this stage[reply]

  • I think you are underlinking. You are assuming readers understand words like ventral, pectoral, crustacean, hermit crab, chevron, calcified
DONE --UND77 (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • upper tooth plate — what does this mean?
Done, I think I clarified. Or does it need further explanation? Marissa927 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the huge range of this species, it looks like parochial trivia to only give incidents from Florida. If you can't make it more global, I'd be inclined to loose the specific examples.
Done. Marissa927 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section looks inadequate, some sections are not mentioned
The lead has been my weakest point throughout this whole process. I tried to clean it up and fix it. Marissa927 (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made these changes, please check. Note that countries and continents should not be linked. I'd be inclined to lose one of the ray pictures and move the shark to the right, on my browser it looks a mess with the photo intruding into the heading. probably needs a bit more work if you plan to go to FA, but I'll pass this once you have had a chance to check that you're OK with my edits above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you made look good. I just moved the pictures around. Thank you for your time reviewing this article! Marissa927 (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Congratulations on passing GA. Still think the map fails for copyright issues but glad it's passed. Not bad for an article that at one point wasn't considered to have enough resources/references for GA. It's amazing what research and effort turns up. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa927 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated taxonomy

[edit]

Currently I don't have the time to update the article. A hint in case someone else do: In 2010 the long-awaited study confirming that the Atlantic population and Indo-Pacific population are separate species was finally published:

White, W.T., P.R. Last, G.J.P. Naylor, K. Jensen & J.N. Caira (2010). Clarification of Aetobatus ocellatus (Kuhl, 1823) as a valid species, and a comparison with Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790) (Rajiformes: Myliobatidae). Pp. 141-164 in: Last, P.R., White, W.T. & Pogonoski, J.J., eds. (2010). Descriptions of new sharks and rays from Borneo. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Paper no. 32.

This means that Aetobatus narinari is the Atlantic species. Everything related to the Indo-Pacific belongs in an article for the Indo-Pacific species, Aetobatus ocellatus. Because this is relatively new discovery, most citations still don't get it right, e.g. FishBase correctly recognize both species but they forgot to update the info for A. narinari when they added A. ocellatus. See also this. RN1970 (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts have been updated, but much remains. RN1970 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spotted_eagle_ray&oldid=1201793093"