Jump to content

Talk:Stephanolepis cirrhifer/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Cool article, will review.

Lead

[edit]
  • One generally does not use citations in the lead, you should mention the facts in the lead and cite them just in the main text.
  • I guess you could expand the lead slightly more, it is barely a bit over two lines. How about adding who described it and when, and its ecology?

Taxonomy

[edit]
  • Link described.
  • Fauna seems too common to link
  • it was transferred to Stephanolepis by Jordan and Fowler in 1903 It would be better to separate this from the other half the sentence using "however"
  • The species name cirrhifer is from the Latin meaning "bearing fringes of hair". Looks better like : The species name derives from the Latin cirrhifer, meaning "bearing fringes of hair".
  • Please write the full names of Jordan and Fowler

Description and habitat

[edit]
  • Link spawning

Parasites

[edit]
  • A part of this is unsourced.
  • The parasite image looks cluttering, the text looks much misplaced around it. Why not keep just the sushi image?
  • No need to mention the binomial authority for the parasite (Shiino, 1956)
  • I think this does not need a separate section, it will look fine under Ecology.
  • Why describe the parasite's life cycle here?

Uses

[edit]
  • Why link Korea and not Japan?
  • Can genetic differentiation be linked?
  • You lay special stress on the fish's popularity in Korea, but you do not mention it at all in the lead.
  • References: Ref. nos. 3 and 5 do not look very reliable to me.

That's all I had to say. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article complete enough for GA?• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Pbsouthwood: for all the additional information in the article. Do you have any more comments? @Rcej: Now please organize this information properly in the article. I do not think there are any other issues presently. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted a few more issues :

  • The last line of uses doesn't start with capital; no source either.
  • Italics needed in Ecology for the scientific names
  • The thread-sail filefish is an omnivore, and can feed on plant or animal matter. Does not an omnivore necessarily eat both plants and animals? I guess you need not repeat it.
  • Just check if you have updated the lead with the new info as required.
  • Other common names --> Other common names include/are
  • ...broken stripes that range from medium brown to blackish. Juveniles of the species usually seek shelter... There should be a break between the two sentences, the second line marks the start of the ecology part, so make it a new para. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: No more comments? Your views are required before we decide the fate of this article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no issues with the quality of the information, layout, language, references or formatting. I don't have much experience with GA process. The article is short, and by no means exhaustive but what is there seems correct and useful. I have no strong opinion whether it is sufficient, but what exists is OK. by my reading of the criteria. I will go with your judgment. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: Thank you. The article need not be long if it can not be helped, it should cover all that it can in the best manner possible. @Rcej: OK, so I took a final look at the article; the Fishbase citation is still there - it is not reliable. It can be easily omitted as it has not been used anywhere as a sole source for a claim. Please remove it. There are no more issues. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, this can be promoted now. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph's caption states "prepared as sashimi" which is mistaken. Sashimi is simply a cut of the fish. When it is placed on top of vinegared rice (as in the photo) is it properly called "Nigiri," "Sushi," or "Nigiri-zushi." Calling it sashimi is an error. , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.181.159 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rcej Would you look into this issue? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]