Talk:Spotted eagle ray

message: Whoever keeps changing the entry to say the spotted eagle ray has "murdered" a woman, please stop.
StocktonDan (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida death 

message: "In the West-Pacific Ocean, it can be found from the Red Sea in South Africa to northern Japan and Australia." The Red Sea isn't in South Africa. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's found many places. Easier to show on map then explain http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/39415/0/rangemap Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this trying to say? 

message: *Some available on FlickR http://www.flickr.com/search/?l=commderiv&mt=photos&adv=1&w=all&q=%22Spotted+eagle+ray%22&m=text, http://www.flickr.com/search/?l=commderiv&mt=photos&adv=1&w=all&q=Spotted+eagle+ray&m=text or http://www.flickr.com/search/?l=commderiv&mt=photos&adv=1&w=all&q=Aetobatus+narinari&m=text
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/hslo/4669729509/ This one shows in a public aquarium
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/laszlo-photo/5217020837/
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/frted/4970887874/
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/icelight/482758109/
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/jayhem/3298310483/ Full length but may not show once sized.
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for editing our articles for the AP biology project. We all really appreciate your help and patience. How do I put a FlickR picture onto the article? Do I take the htm link, or take a special format, or upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Again, thank you very much for your help. --UND77 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:FLICKR. Images that meet strict criteria can be uploaded from flickr to Wikimedia Commons and then once on commons they become available for use on Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: http://www.webcitation.org/62jL55XOE A FURTHER OBSERVATION OF THE PREY-HANDLING BEHAVIOR OF THE GREAT HAMMERHEAD SHARK , SPHYRNA MOKARRAN : PREDATION UPON THE SPOTTED EAGLE RAY , AETOBATUS NARINARI by Demian D Chapman, Samuel H Gruber, Bulletin of Marine Science (2002), Volume: 70, Issue: 3, Pages: 947-952, ISSN: 00074977. Found on Great hammerhead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that! It will be a great resource! Marissa927 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoping it makes a sentence or two in the predators section. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It will, I'm going to work on that tonight! That article has great information. Thanks! Marissa927 (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator great hammerhead  

message: A couple of comments after reading a bit on behaviour. Is all the info in this passage from the same source? In that case there is no real problem. But maybe GA reviewer will ask you to show that more clearly. I don't know how that should be done. I also note a lack of wikilinks. That is also comparatively easy to add later. --Ettrig (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behaviour 

message: We recently observed one large eagle ray followed by a much smaller one (one meter versus 1 foot, about). They came in straight for the rocks, swam back and forth along them, and then swam straight out again, the whole episode lasting about 5 minutes, always less than one meter under the surface, and the small one always precisely the same distance, estimated 2 meters behind the larger one. Was it a parent with a pup? This is undocumented, but I wonder what sort of evidence there is for parenting behavior, and it should be posted here if there is any.AtomAnt (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent with Pup?

message: * http://www.ozanimals.com/Fish/White-spotted-Eagle-Ray/Aetobatus/narinari.html
* Taxon over view http://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon:67bafc99-4fcf-4e32-907c-04b8d6173d48
* http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/taxa/Aetobatus%20narinari
* http://www.catalogueoflife.org/search/all (Search)
* http://www.catalogueoflife.org/details/species/id/9039926/common/164124
* http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Aetobatus-narinari.html
* http://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon:67bafc99-4fcf-4e32-907c-04b8d6173d48#literature (Old books with downloadable pdfs) i.e. http://www.archive.org/download/fishesofwesternn02teev/fishesofwesternn02teev.pdf Fishes of the western North Atlantic (1953) part two. pages 453-461 is all about spotted eagle ray.
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thank you very much! I'll have a look at all of them.  Marissa927 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More refs 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spotted_eagle_ray&diff=next&oldid=456620436. Why this without a reference, it just seems incorrect. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have updated to removed the sentence now and added back previous cited sentence. A bit confused what happened. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  defenseless to sharks because of their short stingers 

message: "The spotted eagle ray has a flat disc shaped body. The body is unlike a sharks, being very broad and thick. It is a blue black or black color and has white spots or rings on the top side. The underbelly is white. These rays have a flat snout, similar to that of a duck bill. The tail is relatively long when compared to the body. Their pectoral discs are long and wing-like. The barbed stingers are located just behind the pelvic fins. The sting ray has 5 gills, located in the front of the pectoral disc." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spotted_eagle_ray&action=historysubmit&diff=457756922&oldid=457746161
Where does that come from? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add information not matching cited ref 

message: Jumping out of water. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/20/stingray/ Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human story 

message: Great job being done here! There is more on the spots in the lead than in description paragraph. It should be the other way around. Maybe just exchange the texts. One spot is marked citation needed. Needs to be taken care of. I will read on, but it seems that this article should be a GA candidate very soon. There is an article on :es:Puerto Pizarro in the Spanish wikipedia. Maybe you can make at least a partial translation. It would also be nice with a map that shows where this fish is found. --Ettrig (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for the advice. I'll go look at the info on spots. As for the citation needed areas, I've been working on cleaning that up. I still have a few left, but I'll get right on it! For the translation, do I put the translated info on this page? Im a bit confused on what you mean. And I'm glad to hear you think it has a GA possibility. That is a goal Ive had in mind! Marissa927 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My hope was for a small (stub) article on Puerto Pizarro, to make the read link blue. This is not required for GA, but would be very nice. Is there a way to ascertain that the Spanish article is about the place mentioned in this ray article? (We should know what is meant by what we write.) --Ettrig (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Puerto Pizarro is a bit specific for such a wide range, see range map. It could say Peru or maybe Tumbes, thing is, it doesn't have the same detail for other coastlines maybe because the source for the text is Americian. So it can be argued the text is WP:BIASed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

text: In my view it falls short of being a B-class yet, certainly fails WP:LEAD, and text in part is unbalanced and is not well written.  Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on need to improve the lead. Any more instructions? Marissa seem to be willing to work diligently on this. --Ettrig (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also that the lead is the weakest part of my article. I have been trying to make it include information and yet not be repetitive. I wasn't sure what kinds of information needed to be up there. Is it a brief summary with bits of information from each section? Marissa927 (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is a summarize of the body of the article with appropriate weight. Everything in the lead as a summary has to be elsewhere in the article. Much of the current lead is not a summary but unique information that likely wants to be moved to the body. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could SunCreator please point out what major parts are still missing? It is somewhat easier to write the lead when the body is near completion. Otherwise the lead will need to be rewritten when the body changes. --Ettrig (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the lead shouldn't be in the lead as it's contents is NOT in the body. Pretty much everything but the first part of the first sentence. So far as I can tell the contents of the lead where sourced wants to move into the body. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Moved the sentences from the lead to body, most of it is now requiring citations and marked accordingly. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the help on the lead. I would have fixed it first, but I have just been to a computer since school let out! The help is great. Ill go and fix the citations. Marissa927 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Improved my perception of the article with the recent addition of those citations. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The citation needed marks helped me figure out where they needed to be. Without them I wouldn't have known.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa927 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More comments 

message: "A great hammerhead shark has been observed attacking a spotted eagle ray in open water by taking a large bite out of one of its pectoral fins. This incapacitated the ray and the shark used its head to pin the ray to the bottom and pivoted to take the ray in its jaws head-first."  
I have seen this line in my article several times and I have deleted it, but it keeps coming back. I know i read it somewhere else and when I searched it,  it came up almost exactly. I can get the blame for any plagiarism on this article, so please if you edit, paraphrase and reword, or at least use quotes! Thank you! Marissa927 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the original source of these two sentences? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Pretty sure it's not a plagarism as the cited original text (p.949) covers it. Most likely you are looking at a WP:FORK or copy of Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Those three pages each say some content is from Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

text: It's not just plagiarism Marissa, but a trap I've also fallen into. There are so many web sites now, and even books, mirroring Wikipedia content that it's very easy to get into a positive reinforcement cycle. I've found myself doing it, even once citing something in a book taken from my Wikipedia article in my Wikipedia article! We're none of us perfect, not even me; we're all of us learning. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

text: "cough", "cough", "Puerto Pizarro", "cough". Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I go work on that article too? My teacher said just translate, but if you think I should do something different?Marissa927 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I (still) think this article is close to GA. A few things are needed though: (1) A summary of the article in the lead. (2) Wikilinks (3) Distribution map. It doesn't need to be very fancy. Maybe talk to the Quoll writers. --Ettrig (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's still a way from GA yet. I'm making some observations at the article's peer review page, so don't go rushing at GAN, as I guarantee the article would fail. GA is a very substantial achievement in its own right, it's not something awarded easily. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not B-class yet, per WP:LEAD. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is easily fixed once the rest of the problems are fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

text: BTW. Alt text isn't a requirement for GA. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I remember now. Still, a simple thing to add. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Good job with the map! Wikipedia:Alternative text for images is text about an image that is intended to supply context for a reader that does not see the image. This is valuable for readers who cannot see, either because their equipment doesn't handle images or because the reader herself is generally unable to see. As MF says above, this is not required for GA. --Ettrig (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thank you! I will try and fix that. But because it is not required I'm going to work on the other things first. Thank you about the range map! Marissa927 (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to do 

message: The slanted jump is repeated and the vertical is not, right? In the current formulation, the word this is slightly ambiguous. --Ettrig (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is repeated? 

message: I have some units in meters, and some in inches and feet. Should I convert it all to metric system? Marissa927 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  For a science article, do metric first, with English units in parentheses.  I advise the same in other parts of Wikipedia except for topics like US history, US geography, etc. where the main usage is English units.  (In that case have the metric in parentheses.)69.255.27.249 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Create an account, every set of eyes is valued!--JimmyButler (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit Conversion 

message: Currently I don't have the time to update the article. A hint in case someone else do: In 2010 the long-awaited study confirming that the Atlantic population and Indo-Pacific population are separate species was finally published:
: White, W.T., P.R. Last, G.J.P. Naylor, K. Jensen & J.N. Caira (2010). Clarification of Aetobatus ocellatus (Kuhl, 1823) as a valid species, and a comparison with Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790) (Rajiformes: Myliobatidae). Pp. 141-164 in: Last, P.R., White, W.T. & Pogonoski, J.J., eds. (2010). Descriptions of new sharks and rays from Borneo. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Paper no. 32.</br>
This means that Aetobatus narinari is the Atlantic species. Everything related to the Indo-Pacific belongs in an article for the Indo-Pacific species, Aetobatus ocellatus. Because this is relatively new discovery, most citations still don't get it right, e.g. FishBase correctly recognize both species but they forgot to update the info for A. narinari when they added A. ocellatus. See also this. RN1970 (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some parts have been updated, but much remains. RN1970 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated taxonomy