User talk:LetMinnow/sandbox

Comments for draft: overall super detailed and interesting! Covered a lot of the life history which is important! I learned a lot just from reading it once, so I think it will be a great addition to wiki. Global edit: I like the first section, but I feel like it is a little too wordy to be an introduction section. I would cut it down to make it more brief, and add some of those details into their respective categories below. Additionally, I think the phylogeny would be more useful at the top. For non-fish people it may be a good place to start, seeing what other fish it is related to that a reader may recognize and make connections.

Local edits: I think that the Range shift section should be changed to native range, and then range shift. Right now them being clumped together is a little hard to tease apart the importance of a potential shift in range (and the implications with that). So think about separating it. Additionally, I would add when the species was introduced into those non-native habitats (100 years ago? 10?) this is an interesting fact to include if you can find it! Just a thought!

Great job! Beesbewithyou (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems extremely well thought out; I don't see any faults in your plans. I think adding new citations is a great idea. According to our instructions the lead section should be a summary of what is to follow and on the Centrarchidae page I noticed there is a lot of information presented in the lead that is never discussed later; perhaps this could be material to expand upon if you want more ideas. But I see you are already doing this with reproduction. My only criticism is I think we were supposed to post a revision of the lead section, not just our plans, if we are revising a preexisting page. So in addition to saying what you are going to discuss you can briefly summarize the information you are adding. E.g. instead of saying "I will discuss the optimal temperature regimes of centrarchid" you could say "the optimal temperature regimes on centrarchid are X to Y degrees C". Also (this is just me nitpicking) you may want to consider putting classification first before fossil record because these topics are related and describing phylogenies gives you a natural transition from broad to specific. But really everything looks solid! メガヒロ (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with this feedback. Your plans and outline seem solid. Yes, I thought that one of the things we were also supposed to do was rewrite the "lead section" which I basically saw as an abstract for the page. The only thing I could think of not mentioned above is that the article talk page had someone saying they thought a fishing section would be good, but I can see that not being your job. Maybe someone else can add that if they want it.--Fisherman!7 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST DRAFT FEEDBACK: The first thing I noticed was that the headings are manually created. There is a tool you can use to automatically format them consistent with other pages. Also (you're probably already planning on fixing this) the citations can be linked to references at the bottom and be displayed as numbers in-text. I mostly just have grammatical suggestions: "Species in the genera Lepomis are defined by species [which have] a deep or more round body shape, [delete: have] smaller mouths, and obtain food through suction feeding". "The genera Micropterus consists of species which have more streamlined body shape, large[r] mouths, and consume prey primarily by ram feeding methods". What are ram feeding methods? In the reproduction section the first sentence ends with "to begin reproduction" and the second sentence begins with the same phrase; maybe reword one of them. Also I am very curious how males are able to sneak fertilization and what other mechanisms prevent hybridization. "Specifically, 28oC to 32oC [has been] determined [to be the] optimal temperature [range] of most species in the family, although they can survive and reproduce in temperatures that are outside of [this] optimum range but within the [non-]lethal temperature range". "From laboratory tests measuring critical thermal maximum and [delete: critical thermal] minimum of centrarchids". "Additionally, the effect that [non-optimal] temperature[s] [delete: shifts outside of the optimal range] [have] on an individual can depend on its life-stage". What is the upper northern edge boundary? Not sure, but in the first paragraph of Range Shifts it looks like you might be using 'adapt' and 'acclimate' interchangeably but they are different. "[However,] due to the very limited [migratory] ability [of fishes], the increased availability of new habitat [will] not [spelling: necessarily] mean the species['] distribution will expand as well". In the next sentence you use the word 'grave'; I think this might be a little to strong and literary for wikipedia; also I think the use of 'though' at the end of the first phrase is unconventional. Very good and very good use of sources! メガヒロ (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST DRAFT FEEDBACK First, The additions to the summary paragraph seem good, helpful, and are well cited. And good job correcting errors and backing the corrections with a citation. Maybe some placed would be worth backing your statement with more than one citation? In the Reproduction section, are specific things in the season change that causes this cue? Water temperature increase? Increased daylight? In the Range Shifts section I lake the specific examples of fish that do and do not acclimate well. Maybe keep an eye out for other places where examples could be helpful. Your added sections look great. They are clear, seem thorough, and information is backed by citations. I also agree with suggestions made above. Good work! Fisherman!7 (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherman!7 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short 1st draft feedback Overall I think this is a great draft, and a topic you're clearly interested in. The only thing i can think of is to make your citations in the standard wikipedia format so that other interested readers can quickly find more information outside your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmsvf6 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]