Talk:Fish/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 19:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have seen this GA nomination in the queue for a while now and will be taking a look at it. The structure and readability of this article is impressive considering its breadth (no doubt supplemented by the various supporting "further information articles" it has, such as fish in culture and evolution of fish). I'll be verifying everything already noted by Just-a-can-of-beans, as well as doing additional spot checks on sources, though I may not be as rigorous as I do not have a background in the biological sciences. Also, it may take a little while to complete, but not more than a few days. Reconrabbit 19:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll aim to get to any issues you find promptly. There are plenty of alternative sources available if you note any source issues. I've checked extensively but if any have got through the net we can fix them straightforwardly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Spot check on sources

Based on the way the previous review was concluded, I'm going to be looking at a lot of the sources, especially because of the visibility of this article. List items were initially checked from this version of the article, those in italics are from this version.

• [4] Y Links directly to meaning, not etymology, but the information is found quickly and easily.
• [5] Y
• [14] Y This one says "age of fish" in the text; does Benson state the Devonian is the "age of fishes"?
  • It's the usual if somewhat archaic phrase, and even zoologists are switching to the more modern form.
• [18] Y "96% of fish species" isn't specifically in the online preview, but this fact is cited enough in other works that I believe it ([16] on Teleost for example).
• [20] Is this just the diversity of Amiiformes specifically?
  • Yes, removed.
    • I missed that there's a trailing ")" after the spot where this reference was. "tetrapods)" needs correcting.
      • Fixed. You're welcome to fix any minor glitches like that, it's quicker than listing it here.
        • Y I wasn't sure if it was meant to be (and the tetrapods).
• [23] Y Note: The preceding (and following) sentence could clarify that the measurement is of the fish's length.
  • Added.
• [28] N I can't find any archived version of this that works. If restored, should probably note language is Portuguese.
  • Yes, all versions retracted from archive, remarkable. Replaced ref, added a couple of numbers.
    • [29] Y
• [29] Y
• [33] Y
• [34] Y
• [41] Y
• [50] Y
• [52] Y The reliability of a course page from a single professor at UTK is debatable but it conveys the information pretty clearly.
• [68] Y This is a great find.
• [71] Y Note: The Scientific American homepage is also in this reference and is archived for some reason.
  • Cited conventionally.
• [75] Y
• [77] Y The formatting on this particular article is... shocking.
• [78] Y
• [79] Y
• [82] Y Note: Is it useful to include that "the reproductive organs may be fused", or is this a level of depth reserved for further reading?
  • Surely it is. Fish reproduction has a mass of exceptions and special cases including hermaphroditism and changing sex; the section is already rather long, too.
• [87] Y This section is difficult to read, but the jargon in the source is even worse to get through (out of necessity for the subject, I guess). Great effort on the translation.
• [91] Y Preview doesn't go as far as when spawning is described, but other sources corroborate facultative schooling to spawn. Most of these other sources indicate that specifically short-term schooling is used to spawn; does it say this in the full text? Shoaling and schooling has a lot to say about the behavior being linked to traveling to spawning locations, though it also has a lot of citation needed tags.
  • Added mention of capelin's annual migration to and from spawning; this is not short-distance.
• [102] Y
• [106] Y
• [109] Y
• [113], [114] Y Could be backed up by non-EU sources.
  • It could. I'm loth to add yet more sources; the point is adequately supported here.
• [119] Y
• [126] Y
• [134] Y
• [140] N Source looks self-published; may be reliable based on constellation standards, there could be better sources in the article Piscis Austrinus but I can't access them.
  • Not ideal. I've replaced it with a simple statement about the constellation and the Roman myth.
    • Y Replacement checks out.

Comments

• Two of the citations under Sources are used in the text, but "Nelson, Joseph S. (2006). Fishes of the World" is not. I notice that the 2006 edition is included in this section and the 2016 edition is cited 5 times. Maybe the latter could be changed to sfn citations and the former changed to the later edition? 19:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Y
  • Done.
• It's mentioned that fish at higher trophic levels predate on other fish, which makes sense. Also referred to ("prey") under Digestion. Is there space to point out herbivorous behaviors of fish? Y
  • Done. Added an image, too.
• I'm about finished with this. Any major statements that aren't in the spot check are sourced to reputable publications or were confirmed at GA1. Otherwise, I feel confident in the overall quality of the sources, not to mention the article as a whole. Just the last source on the constellation is of some concern. There are also a couple researchgate links that look bad, but I think they're fine since the publisher's website doesn't provide the full text. Reconrabbit 16:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Researchgate is just where authors can choose to release a copy of their already-published work so people can easily access it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.