Talk:Yellowtail flounder

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The upper side of a yellowtail flounder

• ... that Limanda ferruginea (pictured), the yellowtail flounder, has been suggested to belong in a new genus Myzopsetta? Source: ... Theodore Gill had placed it in the new genus Myzopsetta in 1861. ref, A 2018 ... analysis found that ... L. ferruginea and its relatives ... should be (once again) placed in the genus Myzopsetta ref
  • ALT0a:... that it has been suggested that Limanda ferruginea (pictured), the yellowtail flounder, belongs in a new genus Myzopsetta?
  • ALT1:... that yellowtail flounders (pictured) are able to camouflage and mimic the seafloor? Source: Yellowtail flounders are able to camouflage, changing the pattern of their skin to mimic the seafloor. ref
  • ALT2:... that the yellowtail flounder (pictured), a right-eye flounder, hatches with symmetrical eyes that then shift to the right while maturing? Source: Being a right-eyed flounder (of the family pleuronectidae), both its eyes are on the right side of the fish's body, though the eyes are symmetrical just after hatching. ref
  • ALT3:... that the yellowtail flounder (pictured) is also known as the rusty dab? Source: ref ref

• Reviewed:
• Comment: 2nd nomination, so no QPQ

5x expanded by Eviolite (talk) and Casliber (talk). Nominated by Eviolite (talk) at 13:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you, I enjoyed this article. There is just the small matter of the wording of ALT0. How about something like, "... that it has been suggested that Limanda ferruginea (pictured), the yellowtail flounder, belongs in a new genus Myzopsetta?" Apart from that, I am happy with the content of ALT0a, and I'm happy with ALTs 1, 2 and 3 as they are, although I would suggest that the apparent magic tricks mentioned in ALTs 2 and 3 1 and 2 would attract more hits. Storye book (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Storye book: I think your modified hook is good, so I have added it as hook 0A above. And for clarity, did you mean alts 2 and 3 or 1 and 2? Thanks, eviolite (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, Eviolite. I have struck out the bits that no longer apply. I am happy with the quality and content of all the hooks as they are now. I personally prefer ALTs 1 and 2 because they will attract more hits. (Sorry about my typo above). Good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P5 without image

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yellowtail flounder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 07:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I will review this article over the next couple of days. I prefer to use the GA review table, which keeps me on task of evaluating just the GA criteria without getting lost in the weeds or bringing up MOS issues that aren't part of the criteria. The table is just a personal preference, although I realize that it can make threaded comments and responses difficult. Feel free to invent your own way of responding to my comments, whether it is in the table boxes in bold, italic, or colored text, or in a section immediately following the table. Generally, I also add a section after the table of other suggestions and comments that I have. Anything I mention outside the table in such a section is a suggestion only, and is not considered part of the pass/fail criteria of GA, so feel free to respond or disregard it if I make suggestions there. I will begin the first part of the reviews shortly. I usually take the review in several steps, and not normally in order. Please don't respond or edit this GA review page or the article itself until I've completed item #7, the "overall assessment" field at the end, which is my sign that I have completed my steps, the ball is in your court, and I will wait for you to respond. I will also ping you to let you know. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and concise. Some of the grammar needs some copyediting, such as "Spawning in the spring and summer, the eggs (measuring approximately 0.9 mm (0.035 in) in diameter) float to the surface and drift for approximately two months" (the eggs don't spawn in the spring and summer, the fish do). Fixing that will fix the following sentence, which uses "their" to refer to the subject of the previous sentence, which should be the fish, not the eggs. Some of the prose can use some massaging, but not to the extent where readability is significantly impacted, so it is enough to pass this section of the GA criteria.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'm not a huge fan of single-sentence paragraphs, such as those that appear in the "Ecology" section, but sometimes that's all the information you have. The article may be improved by combining some of those brief paragraphs, but the problem is not significant enough to fail the layout MOS guidelines. The lead section contains all of the most relevant information that a reader who is just trying to answer a "what is this?" question would need to know before going back to what they were doing, with easy-to-find sections in case more information was needed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article uses appropriately-formatted citation templates with inline citations. In the cases that I checked where facts are presented without citations, I found the citation in the following sentence or two. Sometimes I find that adding commented-out citation links to the end of sentences helps when another editor comes along and adds additional facts to the article, which breaks up the fact from its citation, helps keep this all straight, but that's just a personal preference.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All facts appropriately referenced with inline citations, no apparent issues of original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig search and personal spot checking does not reveal any close paraphrasing, copyright violations, or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects of the topic are addressed; description, distribution, life cycle, diet, predators, ecology/conservation, and human interactions was what I expected to find in the article before reading it, and all of those are adequately addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused without unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral, including the fishing and conservation section, which is about the only section where I would expect to find any neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars or content disputes, no unresolved talk page issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are appropriately and believably tagged with appropriate copyright status, no fair use content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant media, with appropriate captions where appropriate. No caption required for the image in the infobox.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall a well-written and informative article. Passing this one on the first look with no required corrections from the nominator, but take a look at the section below as well as the copyediting suggestions above.

Additional suggestions

Anything in this section is a suggestion for improvement and will not be considered part of the GA pass/fail criteria.

• The article is inconsistent with its units of measure, in some cases using U.S. units with conversions to metric, and in others using metric units with conversion to U.S. units. This is a MOS issue, but not one of the ones that are evaluated in the GA criteria.
• Some of the conversions offer false precision, such as "weighing up to 2.2 pounds (1.00 kg)" should probably be something like "weighing up to about 2 pounds (1 kg)" and in other cases approximations have been converted into much more precise measurements, such as "they dwell on sandy or muddy seafloors at a depth between 100 and 350 feet (30 and 107 m)" should probably be "between 100 and 350 feet (30 and 100 m)"

@Eviolite: That's all I came up with, nicely written article. Promoting. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels: Thank you very much for the quick review, feedback, and promotion! I will work through the suggestions shortly. eviolite (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)