Talk:Common torpedo

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, some general comments-

• Based on your comments on the last GAN, I have added the page to a couple of categories. I hope you don't mind.
• The images all check out, copyright and sourcing wise.
• The article is stable.
• Sources all seem to be very reliable.

Some more specific comments-

• "Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder (1953). Fishes of the Western North Atlantic, Part 2. Sears Foundation for Marine Research, Yale University. pp. 80–96." Inconsistent name formatting?
  • Fixed.
• Perhaps also on "Ben Brahim, R"?
  • Fixed.
• Category:Electric fish?
  • There's a list on electric fish that I prefer, but if there were a category it should probably be Category:Strongly electric fish, to contrast with Category:Weakly electric fish
    • Yeah, that does strike me as a little odd. I don't see there being a particular problem with it being in both the category and the list, though, and it seems the category would be very much appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Category:Animals described in 1758?
  • I don't like this category at all. I don't see any useful reason for species to be grouped together this way.
• Referring to it as found in "the entire Mediterranean Sea" seems to be contrary to the map and the fact it's found in coastal waters specifically?
  • Changed to "all around the Mediterranean"
• "there are a pair of prominent mucous pores" There is?
  • I don't know what the grammatical consensus on this is. I've even seen both used in the same book.
    • As I see it, "pair of prominent mucous pores" is a singular noun phrase, just as "yellow and pink bear" is. If there were "pairs of prominent mucous pores", then "are" would be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• "The dorsal fin is slightly larger than the second." It's not clear what this means.
  • Missing word -- it's "first dorsal fin is slightly larger than the second"
• "The dorsal coloration of the common torpedo is light to dark brown with distinctive large blue spots ("ocellae"), encircled by darker and lighter rings, on the disc." Again, sorry, I don't really follow this sentence.
  • Rephrased
• "eight ocellae has been caught off" Was?
  • Don't think it makes a difference here
    • I'm being dragged back to my English A level here, but it's the passive voice- it's sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. In this case, I'd say not- it gives the impression that it's breaking news or something. While a newsreader would say "Famous singer John Smith has been shot!" the encyclopedia some years later would say "John Smith was shot." Not a massive deal, but I think it reads better without the passive voice. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• The albino point does look to be worth making, but I am not sure that there is the place to do it- it seems a little tacked on. Did the albino have the spots?
  • Can't think of where else to put it, since it has to do with coloration but can't come before the discussion of the ocellae number, or before the discussion of the "default" coloration
    • I can appreciate that. Fair enough. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• "As in other members of its family" As with?
  • Fixed
• Do the electric organs have a name?
  • "Electric organ" is the scientific name
• mullet is a dablink, and I can't be certain to which you refer.
  • Fixed
• organism comes across as overlinking. What is the variety?
  • Clarified
• "Phyllobothrium lactuca,[20] and the monogeneans Amphibdella paronaperugiae[21] and Amphibdelloides benhassinae" Again, don't be scared of redlinks- they're a good thing.
  • Links added
• "by histotroph ("uterine milk") secreted by the mother" What is this, precisely? Without a link, I really think more of an explanation is required.
  • I made an article and linked to it
• What age are they when they are sexually mature, roughly? How long can they live?
  • No information, to my knowledge

I love it! I don't know if you've considered taking this to FAC, but it would not require muc more work. It seems well researched and written, and it seems to cover everything one would want to know about the species. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm saving going to FAC for some of my longer GAs, since the process is so long and nitpickery that I don't really feel like bothering for a modest article such as this. Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can certainly appreciate that. Well, I've left a few replies above, and would be happy to promote the article once the issues are resolved. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes made and category added, as per your suggestions. -- Yzx (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I'm happy to promote now. If you do ever decide to take this to FAC, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page before or after the nomination for some thoughts. Good work! J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)