Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Violet goby/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's my first article. I think I did a good job on it, however I want other editors suggestions. After it has completed peer review I'm hoping to get it into the Featured Articles.

Thanks, Drew R. Smith (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sasata

[edit]

The article needs a lot of work. I saw up at WP:GAN; I suggest you remove it from the queue to avoid a quickfail:

  • article should be renamed to Gobioides broussonneti (specific epithet isn't capitalized; also fix this in the taxobox)
  • all instances of scientific name in article must be italicized (in taxobox too)
  • that taxobox picture has got to go - try to find a free pic from somewhere (shouldn't be too difficult, as it's an aquarium fish)
  • the lead section shouldn't be labeled as "Introduction", and should be longer (see wp:lead)
  • The "Taxonomy" section should be removed completely (all this is summarized adequately in the Taxobox)
  • every paragraph should have a citation (preferable, an in-line citation)
  • expand all one-sentence "paragraphs"
  • capitalization of "gobies" is inconsistent throughout the article
  • use convert templates to give both metric and imperial dimensions
  • headings should only have the first word capitalized
  • fix the numerous spelling errors (eg. Behviour, "despite it's fierce looks", PH, and more)
  • find a book or 3 to use as a reference rather than having to rely soley on unreliable websites (see reliable sources)
  • use the WP:citation templates to format your references (not strictly necessary, but makes the format more consistent, and more informative for the reader)
  • check out Wikipedia:What is a good article?, Wikipedia:Writing better articles and faithfully adhere to all suggestions
  • get someone else to copyedit the text after you've done all the above. If you're still serious about FAC, check out some of the other organism articles at WP:FA to get an idea of what the end product should look like. Good luck! Sasata (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]
  • Agree about withdrawing from GAN. Have a look at Red-capped Robin for an example of depth of biology article.
  • I have made a few changes - too many small sections, and remove redundant wording. Headings should be short if possible.
  • Contentwise, I'd like to see alot more on general biology, to balance the aquaculture material.
  • Will try to chip in.