Talk:Longtail butterfly ray/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 16:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this article looks strong and ripe for promotion; thanks again for all your work on it. It's well-written, appears well-researched and comprehensive, and required almost no copyediting. I only noted one small clarity point (below), but also take a look at the few tweaks I made to make sure I didn't accidentally change your meaning anywhere.

• "Another name for this species" -- is "this species" the longtail butterfly ray or the zonetail butterfly ray? I'm assuming the former, but it's slightly ambiguous.

Yes. I've clarified the text. -- Yzx (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	See minor clarity question above. Comparing IUCN source with Duplication Detector shows no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comparison to this suggests major aspects are covered
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)