Wikipedia:Peer review/Manta ray/archive1

Manta ray

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has just passed GA and I want it prepared for FAC.

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "They first appeared in the fossil record in the Oligocene." This statement isn't particularly helpful to lay readers (including myself). I'm not convinced that the fossil record needs to be mentioned in the lead section. If you insist, perhaps include the time (how many millions of years ago) as well as the name of the epoch. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "M. alfredi tends to be resident and coastal while M. birostris migrates across open oceans, singly or in groups." Both wikilinks go to "Animal migration", which isn't necessary. More importantly, I have to infer the meaning of "resident" in this context. Indeed it isn't actually described in "Animal migration". I suggest re-arranging the statement so that M. birostris and its migration comes first, and remove the wikilink for "resident". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Their breeding habits have been little studied." I don't think that this adds anything to the lead section. Better just to delete it, and leave the latter part of the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "the female manta normally carries a single pup for over a year before giving birth to an offspring already nearly two metres wide." I'm not sure what "carries" means in this context. "Giving birth" seems to imply that "carrying" is some form of gestation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and etymology", paragraph 1: "The mouths of Mobulids lie on the underside of the head, rather than right at the front as in Mantids." What are "Mantids"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and etymology", paragraph 2: "The genus Manta was first described in 1829 by Bancroft." I presume that Bancroft is a person? Could you add a first name, or at least an initial? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't find one anywhere. Or for Dondorff. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and etymology", paragraphs 2 & 4: "The genus Manta was first described in 1829 by Bancroft.... The accepted name M. birostris is ascribed to the German naturalist Johann Julius Walbaum (1792) by some authorities, and to Dondorff (1798) by others." Did Waulbaum name the animal Manta birostris before Bancroft "first described" the genus Manta? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the UFMNH source, I'm presuming the original genus name was Cephalopterus; (see taxonomy section). How would you suggest we re-format this? LittleJerry (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up. LittleJerry (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Was the genus name also named by Bancroft in 1829? I suggest that the information about Bancroft should come after Walbaum and Dondorff. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.

From "Taxonomy and etymology", last paragraph: "Both of these species occur in the normal black color with a rare white morph." How about "Both species are black in color with a rare white morph." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and etymology", subsection "Evolutionary history", paragraph 1: "Molecular phylogenetic evidence shows that the Elasmobranchii and the Holocephali had diverged by about 410 million years ago." This should be either "diverged by 410 million years ago" or "diverged at about 410 million years ago." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Biology", subsection "Physical appearance and anatomy", perhaps mention in the drawing's caption that it shows the underside (ventral surface) of the manta ray. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. It is the dorsal surface. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? The text states that "mantas have... five pairs of gill slits on their ventral surfaces." Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you changed the caption to remove the mention of gill slits. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the gill slits are not in the picture. See the UFMNH article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaced image. LittleJerry (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Biology", subsection "Physical appearance and anatomy", paragraph 2: "Their large mouths are rectangular and face forward rather than downward as is the case in most ray and skate species." It is unclear if most rays/skates have downward- or forward-facing mouths. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy and etymology", paragraph 4: "Both species are black in color with a rare white morph, so color alone cannot be used to distinguish them." From "Biology", subsection "Physical appearance and anatomy, paragraph 3: "The two species of manta differ in color patterns, dermal denticles and dentition. M. birostris has more angular shoulder markings, larger ventral dark spots on the abdominal region, charcoal-colored ventral outlines on the fins and a dark colored mouth. The shoulder markings of M. alfredi are more rounded, while its ventral spots are located near the posterior end and between the gill slits, and the mouth is white or pale colored." These statements seem to contradict each other. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed one. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Biology", subsection "Physical appearance and anatomy", paragraph 2: "They have the highest brain-to-body mass ratios of any fish." I believe that elephantfish (Mormyridae) have the highest brain-to-body mass ratio. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

How long does it take for a pup to become a sexually mature adult? How long do they live? This information should be in the "Lifecycle" subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say how long it takes for a pup to become sexually mature. I suppose that the potential age of 50 is the best guess given in the sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

All I could find was 8-10 years for females. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Biology", subsection "Behavior and ecology", last paragraph: "M. alfredi visits cleaning stations more often than M. birostris, possibly because it has a higher load of parasites." I'm not really convinced. These cleaning stations tend to be in shallower water, especially at coral reefs. M. birostris, being pelagic, has less access to these areas. M. alfredi visits these stations more frequently simply because it can. (This is just my opinion, not based on any sources.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That what I'm going with. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I removed because it has a higher load of parasites. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Distribution and status", subsection "Threats", I don't think that the picture of fishermen with whiptail stingrays is helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The new picture is much better. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased that picture has been removed because it gave a false impression. Although I have been involved in working the article up towards FA status and was aware that LittleJerry was going to put it up for peer review, I have only just realised that Axl has taken it on and that the process has started. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Distribution and status", subsection "Threats", paragraph 2: "Demand for their gill rakers, the cartilaginous structures protecting the gills, has been growing in traditional Chinese medicine practices. This market is of recent origin as the use of dried gill rakers as a remedy is not a traditional one." The statements seem to contradict each other: the use is not traditional, but it is part of traditional Chinese medicine. Moreover, the latter sentence duplicates its own information. How about this: "Use of their gill rakers, the cartilaginous structures protecting the gills, has recently entered traditional Chinese medicine." Or: "Traditional Chinese medicine has recently started using the gill rakers (cartilaginous structures that protect the gills)." Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Distribution and status", subsection "Threats", paragraph 3 is about bycatch and accidental deaths. However paragraph 2 also mentions these in its first sentence before leading on to targeted fishing. I suggest that you delete the first sentence from paragraph 2. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Distribution and status", subsection "Conservation", paragraph 3: "In June 1995, the Maldives banned the export of all ray species and their body parts, effectively putting a stop to manta fishing as there had not previously been an indigenous artisan industry." What is an "indigenous artisan industry"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have adjusted the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relation to humans", subsection "Aquaria", paragraph 1: "Only four aquariums in the world currently display manta rays." The subsection seems to imply that two of these aquaria are the Georgia Aquarium and the Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium. Do you know the names of the other two? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One is the Atlantis Aquarium, Nassau. It does not seem to have a website and my reference is hardly up to FA reliability standard. The other is SEA Aquarium, Singapore. Do you think these ought to be inserted into the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Of course, this should be supported with reliable sources. With the statement "only four aquariums in the world display manta rays", readers may well want to know which these are, perhaps with the intention of visiting one of them. If the number of mantas in each could be stated, that would fantastic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is RS for the other the S. E. A. aquarium. I think the other aquarium is actually the Osaka Aquarium Kaiyukan, the Atlantis released its mantas as the article states. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The source for the "four aquariums" statement dates back to 2008 and may not be currently correct. I think it would be better to just state that very few aquariums house them, naming those we know about. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The subsection is entitled "Aquaria" while the text typically describes "aquariums". Please use a consistent version. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Google gave 860,000 hits for aquaria and 2.6 million for aquariums. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's everything from me. Ideally I would like to see some information about internal anatomy. I haven't checked the references, but a cursory glance suggests that they are reasonable sources. The article is ready for FAC. Good luck. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! LittleJerry (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)