# Talk:Coffin ray

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coffin ray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay - will begin a review and jot queries below. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go, so correct me if I inadvertently change the meaning Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

anything to link "histotroph" to?
Maybe to Ovoviviparity, but there isn't any more info there.
the best thing I think would be to make a page on en.wiktionary on "histotroph" to link to, but tehre is none there yet. If  Iget a chance I might make on today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
has there been any cladistic (morphological or molecular/DNA) work to determine how distinctive it is? Own subfamily suggests genetically isolated for a long time. Any other info on family vs subfamily debate?
The placement of Hypnos in Torpedinidae is based on morphological phylogeny. I've rephrased the section and added a bit to clarify. There isn't really doubt that Hypnos is related to Torpedo but is also highly distinct; authors just differ on what higher rank to give its group. -- Yzx (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It does not occur off Victoria or Tasmania. - any explanation or theory into the disjunct distribution out there (presumably temperature?)?
Not that I've seen, though temperature's certainly possible.
Aah, well, if there's nothing written then we can't make it up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
. The tail is extremely reduced - sounds funny - is it vestigial or rudimentary?
Changed to neutral "extremely short".
 but can survive out of water for hours - "several hours" (??)
The source doesn't actually include a qualifier for "hours", but I assume at least several.
While not life-threatening, the shock can be quite severe, and is perceivable through a stream of seawater being poured on the ray - took me a couple of reads to figure out what was meant. Would " While not life-threatening, the shock can be quite severe, and can be felt through a stream of seawater being poured on the ray" be clearer (?)
Split into two sentences.
Any information on why it is inedible?
Don't know of specific references, but I suspect because it's flabby. "Unpalatable" might be a more apt descriptor, but the source says "not edible".
Let me know of additional issues. -- Yzx (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall: 

Pass or Fail: