Talk:Pink whipray

	Pink whipray 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 18, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fishes Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good- nice to see a strong lead image this time! Some thoughts-

• Futuna is a dablink
  • fixed
• Second common name worth mentioning in the lead? Also, perhaps bold the specific name? Also, "Another common name for this species is Tahitian stingray" - the Tahitian stingray?
  • "Tahitian stingray" isn't as common as "pink whipray", since it refers to just a small part of its very wide overall range. Also, I don't know if the is right to use here.
  • I think bolding should be limited to where absolutely necessary, otherwise it's distracting
• "the 'uarnak'" Why single quotes?
  • No reason; got rid of the quotes and italicized instead, which I think makes more sense
• Template:Multiple image may be something to have a play with.
  • I prefer to use that template only when two images are meant to be linked together; here they're just close incidentally
• What would be the effect of the sting?
  • No specific info, though I assume the same as for any other stingray injury
• "When retained, the meat, skin, and cartilage are utilized." More info?
  • The source doesn't give any more
• A source on the image page of File:Himantura fai rangemap.png would be good. I know there's one in the article, so this shouldn't be an issue
  • Added
• The formatting on "Manjaji, B.M. (2004). Taxonomy and phylogenetic systematics of the Indo-Pacific Whip-Tailed Stingray genus Himantura Müller & Henle 1837 (Chondrichthyes: Myliobatiformes: Dasyatidae). Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tasmania." is a little odd. Perhaps you could use the format= parameter to include "(PhD thesis)" or something akin? I don't know. Is this a particular style that you are following?
  • Edited it a little bit to match APA style
• "McCoy, B. (2008). Varying impact of human feeding on Pink Whiprays, Himantura fai, at two sites on Mo'orea. UCB Moorea Class: Biology and Geomorphology of Tropical Islands, Berkeley Natural History Museum, UC Berkeley." Again, odd formatting- no quotemarks?
  • Added quotes; otherwise the format matches what's suggested at the link
• Can we have a year of description category? Category:Fish of the Indian Ocean? Category:Fish of Australia (and other relevant locational ones?)
  • Added the ones suggested, but not year of description because I think they're trivial

Looking nice- well written, and there are a number of interesting elements to this species. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look, I'm not seeing any issues; this one seems particularly well-polished. I'm promoting now- great work, as usual! J Milburn (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]