Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electric eel/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 October 2022 [1].

Electric eel

[edit]
Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC) and LittleJerry[reply]

This article is about the electric eel, recently found to be a genus with three species, but long studied by science as a unique and remarkable species; its study advanced understanding of electricity as well as of physiology. We've tried to present the subject at once plainly, historically, and scientifically, and we hope you like the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

I think some sections are too short and lacking important details. The Anatomy section, for example, just describes the external appearance of the creature, but in the "Gas exchange" section below, the reader is told about the buccal cavity and the operculum. Further on, we are told about the lateral line and electrocytes. The location of these should have been described under Anatomy. The Gas exchange section does not seem to contain any respiratory physiology, such as the mechanisms of oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange. Do eels have hemoglobin? "Growth and reproduction" doesn't say anything about mating. Does it involve discharging eggs for males to fertilise? The anatomy drawing looks terribly amateurish. Do we have anything better? Graham Beards (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. Electric eels are in the great majority of ways typical teleost fish, with haemoglobin in their blood, oxygen taken up and carbon dioxide given out, eggs laid and fertilised externally, and so on, just like almost any ordinary teleost. The drawing is not of the general anatomy but of the layout of the electric organs, certainly the most aberrant feature of this genus. We'll address the positioning of the anatomical features shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should say this? I still think the drawing is poor. Graham Beards (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a) Yes, will do. b) Maybe the drawing was too large for and not precise enough about what it was conveying, which is just the location and shape of the electric organs. I've resized and relabelled it. Replaced image with a diagram showing successive levels of structure of body, electric organs, electrocytes, ion channels. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "guess" cited to the 2005 Scientific American article is not convincing. Horses are much bigger, but still get shocked. Graham Beards (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its the best we got. We are limited by the information available. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere they have an insulating layer of non-conducting fat which protects them. This is far more convincing. Graham Beards (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into that. LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - At the moment I am not fully confident that the article is comprehensive or accurate. Graham Beards (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards I just purchased this This book which should arrive in a few days. So lets put it on hold. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to revisit. I'll keep this FAC on my Watchist. Graham Beards (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards I did some expansions. I added more on reproduction/lifecycle, plus information on eyesight, hearing, gills, locomotion, nocturnality and origin of lineage. The electric stuff is more Chap's territory and he's away now but should be back soon. I did contact some experts on how the electric eels avoid being electrocuted themselves and if there's papers on it. It seems to not be discussed specifically (yet) in the scientific literature. You mentioned reading about fat insulation, but I can only find that mentioned in the popular literature. The Scientific American article seems to be the best resource on that subject at this point. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific American is popular literature. If you going to use the guess as an explanation, you should ensure that it is made clear that it is a guess. And, it goes against the point about wading horses, in the preceding paragraph, which are also bigger than a human arm. I think the guess regarding insulating fat tissue is far more credible. Graham Beards (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed SA article and added new information on the vital organs being packed in front and separated from the electric organs. The electric charge goes into the water and away from the body. LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. These eels act more like capacitors than batteries. See: Sun, H., Fu, X., Xie, S., Jiang, Y. and Peng, H. (2016), Electrochemical Capacitors with High Output Voltages that Mimic Electric Eels. Adv. Mater., 28: 2070-2076. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201505742

Graham Beards, anything more needed? LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-read the article later today. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two more comments:
  • I think mitochondrial DNA is better than "mitochondrial genome" because more readers will know what DNA. (Not a big deal)

Support I am satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria. (I don't think there will be any issues with the quality of the sources). The nominators have done a splendid job. Graham Beards (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I also think the article looks surprisingly short for such a well-studied animal, so I will also wait with reviewing until the expansion hinted above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, ready? LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of archaic "ſ" This version of the letter S has fallen out of use in the English language (a long time ago) and its use in the long quote under Notes will confuse many readers. They will not know that "dorſal" is just "dorsal", "obtuſe" is "obtuse", "ſo ſevere" is "so severe" and so on. Why is it being used here? It is not an archaic spelling and is not affected by WP:PMC but come under MOS:CONFORM. Graham Beards (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
I think these three images[4][5][6] should definitely be used in a multiple image template on a top to bottom row so the readers can see the differences, or by using the compilation image you mention, which I fear is in even lower resolution, though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, note which species are shown in the images.
    All photos up to 2019 are of "E. electricus" sensu lato, i.e. only identified to genus. It might be possible to predict the species if an image is taken in the wild and has GPS co-ordinates, but we don't seem to have any of those, and it'd be close to WP:OR anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk? LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments above and below, more to come. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay photos of entire live specimens on Commons:[7][8][9][10] I think showing at least one entire live specimen is important.
Added one. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see it, but we can be on the look out for better photos. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This shows that contrary to earlier ideas, the Apteronotidae and Sternopygidae are not sister taxa" But what does this mean to the subject of the article?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lineage of Electrophorus may have split from sister taxa Gymnotus" Should be taxon singular. Also link sister taxon.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are marked on the phylogenetic tree" Is this a synthesis of different trees? In any case, should be stated in text what the cladogram is based on.
  • The tree is from Elbassiouny et al 2019, as stated and cited in the Phylogeny paragraph. Clarified the wording to this effect. The data on electrolocation are from Bullock and Lavoué, also cited in that paragraph; these do not affect the tree's structure (i.e. there is no synthesis of phylogeny). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would make more chronological sense if the taxonomy section comes before the section about modern DNA work.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Electric eels form a clade of strongly electric fishes" Well, they specifically form a genus, which should be specifically stated.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could state the common name of Electrophorus in parenthesis in the cladogram like you do with all the other listed groups.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the picture of the old book text description adds. Would be more interesting to show a historical depiction of the animal or similar, like this skeleton (which should be used somewhere either way).[11] The info in the caption should instead be incorporated in the the text that covers the animal's naming.
  • "About a century later, in 1864" Not sure why we need to spell out it was about a century later, the year is enough for the reader to deduce this, overly wordy.
  • "but in 2017 the genus was merged back into" By who and on what grounds?
  • "The three species are E. electricus (sensu stricto), E. voltai sp. nov., and E. varii sp. nov." This wording would confuse most readers. Try to explain it in common terms.
  • Anything on their human use or non western cultural significance? The research section is very centred on western science, which I'm sure is not all that could be said.
  • I randomly found this interesting paper which doesn't seem to be cited, looks like an oversight:[12] Images and videos from it are free to use.
  • One of these videos from the paper should definitely be included.[13][14][15]
Added one. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk; all finished. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleithrum is triple duplinked, could also be explained in parenthesis at first mention.
fixed. The cleithrum is pointed to in the picture below. LittleJerry (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intercratonic basin" What is that?

Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other new species, E. varii, is also a fish predator" Since this article will probably exist for decades from now, "new" seems unhelpful.
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ecology" Seems an odd section with unrelated info (habitat and feeding) seemingly grouped ad hoc out of convenience rather than for being related. Feeding and prey info would make more sense grouped closer with info about its hunting style, and the "ecology" section could just be called "distribution and habitat" as usual.
Ecology = "the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings." That includes habitat, feeding and nocturnalty. I've written many FAs with habitat and feeding under "ecology". LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems weird that the info about feeding and how it attacks its prey should be so far apart, but if no one else complains... FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mouth is at the front of the snout, and opening upwards." Opens upwards?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an "oral respiratory organ" covered in blood vessels" Why quotation marks?
Changed LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eight radials in each pectoral fin" As opposed to what?
What do you mean? It says that electric eel are the only memebers of their group with eight radials. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so what is the regular number of radials in the rest of its group? FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They differ. Changed anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for randomly switching to Electrophorus instead of just sticking to "electric eel" throughout?

Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used "electric eel" throughout except in the couple of places where the name of the genus is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main organ is the first electric organ to develop, followed by Sachs' organ and them Hunter's organ. All the main electric organs" You go from talking about a "main organ" singular then to "main organs" plural, are we talking about the same or different things?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produce electrical discharges as early as 7 cm (2.8 in)" Do we have any idea what age this is?
Not mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "males becoming reproductively active at 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in) in length" Likewise, and other places too.
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Human deaths from electric eel shocks "are apparently quite common" in the region." This seems like it could be elaborated on. Any notable cases or descriptions of how this occurred or how to avoid it? Like venomous animal articles, this one could potentially save lives if there is anything useful about that.
Not mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Electricus. Blaekish, without dorsal fin" Source says blackish.[16]

Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by which is has the power" It has.
fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk Replied to all. LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any Colouration differences in the species? The images seem to indicate so?
This could be stated explicitly in the article for clarity, then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2021, Jun Xu and colleagues state that Hunter's organ" Stated?
  • "so they suggest it may" Suggested? I know 2021 is recent, but it won't be in ten years.
  • "Despite their name, electric eels are not closely related to the true eels (Anguilliformes) but are members of the electroreceptive neotropical knifefish order (Gymnotiformes), which is more closely related to the catfish." Much of this is not stated in the article body. The intro should not have unique,unsourced info.
  • "until the unexpected discovery in 2019 of two additional species." This is a bit misleading, since these other populations were already known. Would be more accurate to say something like it was discovered that the electric eel constituted three species instead of one.

FunkMonk, all finished. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
  • Evidently someone brought one from Latin America to Sweden, possibly at Linnaeus's request. None of the sources records who shipped it. From the sources summarized in "Early research", we know that European naturalists were experimenting with electric eels in Latin America in the 1760s, and that specimens were shipped alive back to London at that time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could that make it into the section? That European research was already underway by the time Linnaeus got one shipped to Sweden Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We cover it in the 'Early research' section, where it seems like a good fit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way it reads, it looks like Linnaeus was the first European to lay eyes on it. Chapter 8 of The Shocking History of Electric Fishes has a lot of good info on this if you can access it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added a bit in the section to indicate that research was already under way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But do try to include that book if you can access it, it looks like it has lots of great detail about early research beyond just electric studies Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in my local library, and it's printed only as a very expensive hardback. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the research sources actually give this, other than to say that it is low, and that as the article says, it's in very brief but repeated pulses. This suggests 1 Ampere, but since it also says 500 Volt is the max, and it's from 2010, it's not obviously terribly reliable; and giving a single figure ignores the fact that it's A/C (i.e. varying continuously) and in pulses, so quoting it would basically be misleading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Around one amp is accurate and Zurich Zoo says "0.83 ampere with the power output of 415 watts occasionally up to 1 ampere and 600 watts". [17] Graham Beards (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, adding it with what I hope is sufficient caution. The power of 600 watts supposed by the Zurich Zoo is however definitely wrong, as it assumes 600 volts x 1 ampere continuously = 600 watts. The pulsing, intermittent, varying current is however very far from continuous, so the average (it would have to be root-mean-square) power is much less. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, trying that now. The two (Electroreception, Electrogenesis) are actually quite closely related as they are used together, so if the split doesn't work for you, we can just undo it, no worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The adults survive though this period by air-breathing, and the young through prolonged parental care lasting four months" I thought they usually breathe air, and this sounds like the young can only breathe by using prolonged parental care Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to continue this later today or by Friday Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems kinda trivial to me, like just listing random facts about random indigenous populations. To me, it'd be like listing movies or video games with electric eels at random if you were to put in a Pop culture section. Like, according to Claude d'Abbeville, it's called the "pouraké" in the Tupi language, why not add that too? And the list goes on and on Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "local culture" paragraph. The stuff about using horse is already mentioned later. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77? LittleJerry (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dunkleosteus77, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional sSupport from Sandbh

[edit]

The lede doesn’t provide a sufficiently good summary of the main body of the article. The two paragraphs are too long. All I can learn from them is largely confined to eel genealogy and biology. The first paragraph goes into too much detail about the three species whereas all that needs to be said is that there are three species.

I've trimmed and copy edited the lede accordingly. Feel free to revert or edit etc. Sandbh (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sandbh (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, could you do a source review? LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has done one by the weekend I can take a look then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

[edit]

A fascinating topic, that I've been meaning to read about for a while, so I'm going to seize the chance to review this. Thanks for bringing it to FAC. I haven't read through all the other changes made during the FAC, so if I'm repeating a resolved issue, feel free to say so. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 2019 it was discovered that there were three species of electric eel." I don't love this construction, which to a biologist would imply that two species new to science were discovered in that year. Suggest reworking to make it clear it's a split.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC
  • "strongly electric fishes" can we be more specific? What abilities do they have, are they unique to this clade, or unique in strength, and if so how?
  • It's just a brief mention here in the Phylogeny section; much more is said in the Electrophysiology section about these abilities, including the exceptional voltage which is indeed the greatest of any fishes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no taxonomic study to cite between 1872 and 2017?
Nothing important. LittleJerry (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albert and Crampton (linked below) suggest two families were lumped in 1995. The source you cite implies that they are sometimes split and sometimes lumped. I suggest either mentioning each of these, or recasting the sentence to acknowledge the variety in number of families, and then mention the most recent split. As things stand, this is suggesting that 2017 was the first time the families were combined after 1872, which is plain incorrect. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have split from its sister taxon Gymnotus sometime in the Cretaceous" the "may" is confusing. If there's multiple hypotheses here, I'd suggest explaining them; if not, I'd phrase this as "a YYYY study estimated..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2019 paper says the species may be distinguished via anatomical features; as you're not overburdened by length, suggest including.
Its already stated in the species section. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pack-hunting story is interesting, but the use of passive voice is odd; I'd suggest "They were thought to be solitary...until they were observed hunting in packs in YYYY by scientists", and then add this behavior.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species mainly eats fish" there's three species, "the species" is ambiguous. Given taxonomic revision, I'd suggest "electric eels" in place of "the species".
Its talking about E. voltai. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link/explain "radials"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Electric eels use their high frequency–sensitive tuberous receptors, distributed in patches over the body, for hunting other knifefish" seems to me this would work better with the other information on hunting.
No, we are separating anatomy from behavior/ecology. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this sentence is referring to ecology....? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could move it to the Ecology section, but it'd be a bit orphaned there, and it seems to fit well with the oother electrical stuff where it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Not any sort of deal-breaker. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link/explain "tuberous receptors".
  • There's essentially one sentence on how the electro-reception works; more detail would be nice.
They were originally together. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A whole paragraph; and the linked articles give more detail, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of material on electrophysiology and the production of an electric current, but that doesn't necessarily tell the reader what that has to do with sensation. Perhaps it's a matter of rewording, rather than adding...Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Researchers have explored what the electrosensed world of weakly-electric fish might be like, as I've described at Electroreception and electrogenesis#Electrolocation. There is no reason to suppose the electric eel's world is much different, but there isn't the same body of detailed research on electrolocation in this genus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the other biology folks above were unbothered I might be the outlier. 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The caption of the marine-freshwater comparison seems worthwhile including in the text; not everyone will read the caption.
  • Apologies, missed that. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says they use their electrical capabilities to stun prey, but then discusses their use in self-defense also; what do the sources say about this?
Huh? LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Humboldt and his story about horses, what's unclear? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, your comment puzzled me as well. Humboldt's horse story was widely doubted by biologists but not any more. There's no doubt among biologists that electric eels defend themselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that's worth mentioning then. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned it near the end of Electrophysiology (cited to Catania 2016; he discusses Humboldt in several of his papers). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not actually elaborate on the sentence in the lead discussing the electric battery.
  • Might this be a useful source?

That's it from me for the moment. Nice work. It's a little concise in places, but I understand the literature is quite sparse, aside from volumes about the cell biology involved in electricity production. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked for more sources after having done the source review, and it seems to me there is some detail that may be worth including that isn't currently. For instance: Albert and Cramptom 2005, which isn't cited, compares Electrophorus to the rest of the order, and highlights some aspects that are unique.

Support from me, nice work. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Froese and Pauly 2022 link is broken. Reliability looks okay, written/curated by experts. Also, there appear to be three separate sources by the same people and from the same site; is that needed?
Thanks, but my issue is that Froese and Pauly, Fishbase, appears three times in the list of references, when surely they should be collated? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edwards 2021 appears to be a pre-print; was it subsequently published? Author looks reliable, but we should avoid a pre-print unless absolutely necessary.
  • It doesn't seem to have reached a journal at the moment, and it fixes some definite errors in the conventionally-understood history. It also serves as a secondary source for the early (historic) primary material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC source needs a date.
None given. LittleJerry (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checked phylogeny from Elbassiouny et al. Source is from 2016, article says 2019; the presumed typo is easy to fix, but have there been better phylogenies published since? There's some candidates here, haven't checked them. Would be particularly useful because bootstrap values for the first split are not high. Phylogeny is accurately rendered.
  • Typo fixed. I don't see a new complete phylogeny for the group. Even if we had a new one it would be unlikely to affect the placing of Electrophorus within the Gymnotidae, which is the key takeaway here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alda et al 2019, Systematic Biology, appears to cover most of the group. The topology is identical, the node support higher. I'd suggest citing it, even if you're not revising anything. At the very least it's a far heftier journal. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely an oversight on my part, but I'm not seeing where the source for the electric organs on the phylogeny is.
  • I fixed one instance of ref order (ones cited earlier listed first), check for others when you're done.
  • Spot-checked some uses of de Santana et al., look okay.
  • The Bastos source is a PhD thesis, not ideal. Did he not publish that information elsewhere?
  • Animal Diversity Web looked questionable at first, but it's maintained by the museum at Michigan University, actually ought to be high-quality; and possibly, as a secondary source, superior to some of the papers.
  • Spot-checked Oliveira et al, looks good. Seems to have more usable information, though.
  • Not sure the "miscellaneous publications" adds anything to Albert 2001. Worth working in the publisher, though.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's considerable use of 19th century primary sources. These are attributed inline, and I believe their use is okay, but I can't help but wonder if their work has been covered by more recent sources.

Otherwise things look good. I did only a handful of spotchecks, as that's what I had time for; if more are needed, please let me know. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Electric_eel/archive1&oldid=1115338776"