Talk:Electric organ (fish)

In fiction section

An editor has seen fit first to delete the "In fiction" section as irrelevant, and then without any sort of discussion (per WP:BRD), again to delete both a paraphrase and the supposedly "overlong" quotation which actually related the fiction to the electric organ of fishes. For the sake of harmony, I've not restored the quotation, despite its obvious relevance and the need for it in the paragraph, and its very modest length; instead, I've paraphrased it so there is now no quotation there. To be clear, the section is certainly relevant, as it situates the electric organs of fishes in literature as well as in biology. I hope this is now sufficient justification and the matter can be considered closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Electric organ (fish)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jj1691 (talk · contribs) 23:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• I noted your edit. On the Rajiformes, it's only the skates (Rajidae) which are electric, and they're marine, so I've updated the table entry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

{{subst:#if:Nice piece of work, meets all criteria. With slight improvements a great FA|

---

Nice piece of work, meets all criteria. With slight improvements a great FA|}}

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}

6. 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):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that electric organs are composed of stacks of specialised cells that can generate electricity? Source: https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/216/13/2451/11375/Electrocyte-physiology-50-years-later
  • ALT1: ... that electric organs have evolved at least six times in various teleost and elasmobranch fish? Source: https://doi.org/10.1242%2Fjeb.015982 , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3351409 , and more
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Seyrani Monument

Improved to Good Article status by Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC).

• New enough GA. QPQ present. I don't see "stacks" in the hook fact source directly, but it does seem to describe such a layout. ALT1 source more easily checks out. No textual issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)