Talk:Manta ray/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 04:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 04:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Article seems well sourced, no OR and covers the topic well. My concern is that it goes into too much detail in many areas, and is a bit to technical. The article isn't within my are of expertise, and these issues will certainly be covered in an FA review if you take it there. I may have to defer to another reviewer and ask for a second opinion, but i'll decide on that soon. ★★RetroLord★★ 01:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

All problems have been fixed expect for the captions. FA reviwers prefer that they don't mention the animal's name (see elephant). LittleJerry (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	" mantas aggregate" I'm not really sure that "aggregate" is the right word here. Perhaps congregate? "Areas where mantas aggregate are popular with tourists and a small number of mantas are housed in large aquariums but in general mantas are elusive, fast moving, free roaming and difficult to study." This sentence could perhaps be made into two. It doesn't flow very well, could you rewrite it? "manta rays belong in the last of these" Pehaps change to "Manta rays can be classified as" then specifically say, not " the last of these"? 'Their cartilaginous bones do not preserve well as they lack the calcification of the bony fish' I'm not sure what this means. I don't think calcification is being used in the right sense in this spot, but i'm not sure as im not an expert on calcification, so i'll come back to you on that one  Not done Done. (The wikipedia article on calcification had too narrow a definition and I have widened it because calcification of bone is a normal body process and the most common use of the word.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC) (2nd op): This all seems OK now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"which also includes the devil fish" As this isn't mentioned in the article, is there a reason it is in the lead? "However they are generally elusive, fast moving, free roaming and difficult to study."  Not done This sentence is a bit casual, could we rephrase? Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC) (2nd op): lead - should be longer, with brief coverage of each section of the article. Layout: ok; Weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	(2nd op): All seems fine, would pass this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	(2nd op): ok, would pass this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	(2nd op): no sign of it, would pass this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	(2nd op): correct coverage, would pass this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	(2nd op): focus: no problem; surplus detail: no problem. I find the style clear and appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	(2nd op): no sign of POV, would pass this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	(2nd op): no signs of editwarring, would pass this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	(2nd op): All images from Commons, they all have copyright status tags there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Problems with captions: "Seen from Johnson Sea-Link submersible while it explores the Monitor wreck" This caption seems a bit unneccceary, change it to focus on the actual manta "Group in the Maldives" Group of what? "Drawing showing pectoral and cephalic fins, eyes, gill slits and tail" Drawing of what? Can you refer to the manta ray in this please "At the Lisbon Oceanarium" add in "a manta" to that, so it is related to the topic please Could we change the lead picture? It seems low quality and the manta ray is obscured by the other fish, is there a better one? (2nd op): Reviewer's comments have been actioned (lead picture is not a showstopper), would pass this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed

SECOND OPINION

Hi! The reason I have put this up for second opinion is that I am unsure whether the article is too technical in it's tone and descriptions of the subject. I would appreciate if another reviewer could offer their opinion regarding this. Thankyou ★★RetroLord★★ 04:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review RetroLord. Lots of articles on Wikipedia have technical content and it is not clear to me precisely which of the GA criteria you think are not met in this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever criteria unnecessarily technical language comes under, which I would assume to be either 1a or 3b. Do you think the article is overly technical in it's language? ★★RetroLord★★ 08:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been working with LittleJerry on this article so much of the text is mine. You could compare the language used with the Porbeagle, Silky shark or Oceanic whitetip shark, three of the five fish articles that are FAs. I note that all these articles include the animal's name in the image captions, but when Common toad was a featured article candidate, I was told to remove its name from the captions where possible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if the animals name was featured in all the captions for clarity. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Retrolord, which parts of the article do you consider too technical/overdetailed? I'm happy to take a close look at particular areas to offer a second opinion on the matter. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

To name just a few technical words: pelagic, pectoral, cephalic, congregrate, ventrally, abdominal, denticles are mutlicuspid, cartilaginous, intermingling. Keep in mind Wikipedia is meant for the general public, not for scientific experts on the subject. It should be accessible and not too difficult. Adding more hyper-references could solve this partially. Elasmobranch is problematic, but I don't have any objections to Elasmobranchii.

Although I think the article is quite good, I wouldn't pass it as a GA as it is right now. Michael! (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: It might also be a good idea to change the second paragraph of Distribution and status - Threats into a separate subsubsection "Human consumption". Just a suggestion, not very important. Michael! (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Several of those terms are linked and are used in other fish GAs and FAs. In particular "pectoral" can't be replaced. You can't expect use to call them "side fins" or "chest fins". I really think someone with experience in reviewing animal articles should take over. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't get an expert reviewer. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, not experts, if the article is too technical you can't just demand an expert in manta rays review it instead. And please stop reffering to other GAs or FAs, as they are irrelevant. ★★RetroLord★★ 23:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

LittleJerry did not ask for an expert reviewer, he asked for someone with experience in reviewing animal articles. They are very different things. Other GAs and FAs cannot provide conclusive answers to questions, but they're certainly not irrelevant, as they can provide valuable formatting ideas and demostrate precedent. Technical language alone is not proof that an article is over-technical; technical language is sometimes required, as certain subjects cannot meaningfully be discussed without recourse to technical language. Linking or explaining terms is a useful way around this. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have wikilinked a number of technical terms in the lead and early paragraphs. I will work through the items listed below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Issues with the article currently:

1. Overly technical language

More wikilinking now done to help explain technical terms Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

2. elasmobranch is blue linked twice in the article

Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

3. "An extinct species, Paramobula fragilis, has been found in the Chandler Bridge Formation of South Carolina" Could this be rewritten for clarity? I assume they found fossils?

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

4. Tourism section seems a bit lacking, I would have thought there was more information on this area?

Added more. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

5. I will look into whether the culture section goes into enough detail, as it may not be enough right now

6. "Both Manta birostris and Manta alfredi are pelagic. They are found in tropical and sub-tropical waters in all the world's major oceans and also venture into temperate seas. The furthest north they have been recorded is South Carolina in the United States (31ºN) and the furthest south is the North Island of New Zealand (36ºS). They prefer water temperatures above 68 °F (20 °C)[19] and M. alfredi is restricted to tropical areas." This seems to be a contradiction. It states that "they" are found in both tropical and subtropical areas, but then goes onto say M.alfredi is only in tropical areas. Please rewrite this for clarity

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

7. "Fish that have been fitted with radio transmitters have shown what enormous distances they can cover" Seems to be a redundant sentence that is repeated in the next one

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

8. "They keep close to the surface and in shallow water in daytime, while at night they swim near the bottom in deeper waters" The bottom of what? Perhaps change to something like sleep near the ocean floor. Also, given that some parts of the ocean are quite deep, is this claim correct, they always sleep at the bottom of the ocean?

They never sleep. I have rephrased this sentence Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

9. "move in to fill the gap" This is too colloquial, please rewrite it with a more encycloedpic tone.

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

10. " oceanic manta rays" What exactly is the difference between an " oceanic manta rays" and a manta ray? Are there non-oceanic manta rays?

Well spotted! I think its the same as M. birostris and I have rephrased the paragraph where it was mentioned several times. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

11. "Some mantas are injured by collision with boats, including those laden with "manta watchers" Could you reference this please? Also, how many mantas each year are actually injured by coliding with a boat, I would imagine the number is quite low. Could we remove this sentance as criteria 3b unneccessary detail? If you choose to keep the sentence, the second half will need to be removed definetly, as it is also unneccessary detail

They would be less likely to collide with boats were it not for the "manta watchers" wanting to see them at close quarters. I have reworded this paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

12. " irresponsible tourism" What does that mean?

Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

13. Could you add into all captions the word Manta Ray so we know what we are looking at

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

14. "but on one occasion, a birth was witnessed at the Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium and the female seemed ready to mate again straight away" This is unneccessary detail, we don't need to note that one time something unexpected happened. Please remove it ★★RetroLord★★ 05:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. In the wild, births have hardly ever been observed and the gestation period was unknown until recently. So I think it is relevant that mantas seem able to breed at greater frequency in captivity than they do in the wild. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine if you say that in the article, but we can't leave it in there because it implies something. Also, if we keep it in for this purpose of proving that they breed faster in captivity, can we get a reference for that? ★★RetroLord★★ 09:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have rephrased this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still reviewing the article. The article is quite long and detailed so it is taking a while, apologies for the delay ★★RetroLord★★ 07:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)f

• I have a comment on names in the captions. Since there are two species, I think it could be mentioned which one is pictured, when such info is available. I do not think the common name for both, "manta ray", should be used in the captions though, as this is redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have added the species to the captions where I can determine which species is illustrated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

(2nd op): I've reviewed quite a few animal articles and this one seems acceptable to me. It's not absurdly technical; it's well written and organized; it's properly cited; it will not disgrace the good name of Biology and medicine GAs. My only suggestion is that the lead should be extended to reflect the article's contents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your second opinion. I have expanded the lead section a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I second that thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)