Talk:Ocellated electric ray

Ocellated 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.
Review: June 17, 2013. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ocellated electric ray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 14:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"there is heavy trawling activity within its limited range that take it as bycatch." Not a fan of this construction- it's not really the activity which takes it as a bycatch.

Rephrased to "it is susceptible to the heavy trawling activity within its limited range."

"In 1948, Henry Bryant Bigelow and William Charles Schroeder created the new genus Diplobatis for this species." Any information on why it was considered distinct from Discopyge? I'm happy to promote without such details, but if you have them, they'd go well in the article.

Added a note about it.

"transverse line" and "scalloped" are a little jargon-y.

The only synonym I can think of for "transverse" is "crosswise", but I think that would confuse people more. "Scalloped" is already a less technical term than what I've seen in sources, and I don't know how else to describe it.

Other valuable information would be how it differs from the similar cogeneric species.

There aren't any cogenerics in the Pacific, and the eyespot is distinctive. I think the article already states this though.

"The protein agrin, which concentrates acetylcholine receptors during embryonic development, was first isolated from this species." A little more on agrin? Is it a protein found in humans?

I wanted to restrict medical detail since it's not all that relevant to this species. I modified it to "human embryonic development". -- Yzx (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know I always ask this, but... I'm assuming lifespan isn't known? Any mention in the aquaria book?

There's no data.

Category:Fish of the Pacific Ocean?

Added.

Looks like a strong article on a less well-known species. Sources and images are good. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the responses- I am still a tad worried about jargon, but this is definitely GA-worthy. Have you considered interwiki links to Wiktionary? That's something Sasata sometimes uses to get around the mycojargon he employs in some of his articles. In any case- something to think about. Promoting now. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]