Talk:Onefin electric ray

Onefin 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 4, 2013. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 05:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this one, another nice little article. FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy section could need some classification info. What are the closest relatives, etc.

I don't know of any study looking at the relationship between the Narke species. There's some genus-level phylogenetic data, but I prefer to keep that stuff out of species-level articles.

Any info on what grounds it has been referred to that genus then? FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it defines Narke as it's the type species. I added a note on Kaup's definition of the genus. -- Yzx (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's interesting and notable enough to be added in this article. Could it be mentioned that other species was since added to the genus? FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted it. -- Yzx (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It grows up to 38 cm (15 in) long and 26 cm (10 in) across, though individuals of this size are rare.[6][8]" Any info on the average then?

Not to my knowledge.

"It is most often found shallower than 50–100 m (160–330 ft)" Areas shallower than?

Clarified.

Maybe note where the infobox image was taken?

I don't think it's particularly important. The species range is so small anyway and there's no indication of geographic variation in appearance.

That's about it from me, nice to see these obscure species get some attention. FunkMonk (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think it looks good now, so I will pass it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]