Talk:Asian arowana/GA1
GA Reassessment[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Breaking down issues by GA criteria:
- Well written
- The lead does not seem to really describe the importance of the fish. Some of the facts mentioned are the only place they appear. Taxonomy discussion seems excessive, and there's a sense it is just an amalgamation of facts more than a clear definition of the subject and its importance. Evolution discussion is great.
- In the description section, the taxonomy is poorly integrated, with two lists containing what seems to be almost the same breakdown, one based on genetics the other on coloration (note that one color was not examined in the genetic study). The taxonomic dispute seems to only be mentioned in one sentence, with no description of basis.
- The behavior section seems to be a few facts from aquarists, but no systematic treatment.
- The relationship with humans has an empty sub-heading. Conservation overview is quite good, I think. The care in captivity subheading borders on being a how-to.
- The referencing is hard to follow in places (eg Sin Min 2005), but fairly extensive. Some of the links appear to be dead, as would be expected.
- Factually accurate I lack any significant expertise here. I have not verified the information from sources. The IUCN data was updated in 2011, which is not reflected in the article.
- Broad in coverage This seems to be the major area in need of improvement; key information seems to be missing. The behavior section is rather scant. There's one line on diet in the lead, a couple in "care in captivity." If the lead is accurate, cultural beliefs are relevant, but that's an empty heading at the moment. Habitat information is scattered among different sections, rather than in a section of its own. Life history information is minimal, as is ecological information.
Other parts of GA criteria seem okay. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- How goes the reassessment? AIRcorn (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was not sure how long to leave the reassessment up. It has been here for just over a month and no one has commented or edited the article (it only had one major contributor, who I notified, but is not very active). --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- A month is usually more than enough time to fix any issues. You could leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes if you want to make sure all the bases are covered; the ultimate aim here is to keep this as a good article. Otherwise it is probably time to delist it. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can take a swing at it. I know it's been a while though. Esoxidtalk•contribs 18:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Is the "notes" section something that is an outdated form? I'll have to find all out these sources, generate proper ref tags and put them into a reflist.Esoxidtalk•contribs 19:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm also not sure about the taxonomy as presented. The multiple species listed are considered junior synonyms by a few sources. I'll have to read them before I start organizing what appears to be very confusing. It's not very wise to start listing newly redescribed taxa until they are accepted as valid, especially when the redescriptions are from only one source. Esoxidtalk•contribs 01:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- A month is usually more than enough time to fix any issues. You could leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes if you want to make sure all the bases are covered; the ultimate aim here is to keep this as a good article. Otherwise it is probably time to delist it. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was not sure how long to leave the reassessment up. It has been here for just over a month and no one has commented or edited the article (it only had one major contributor, who I notified, but is not very active). --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for all the edits. I took care of all the references, removed dead links and non-relevant ones. I removed some of the how-to parts, and I'll redo some of the other areas, like behavior, add info and rework the taxonomy. As for the IUCN data, it was updated in 2011 but the species has not been reassessed since 1996, so the article is accurate as to its listing status. Esoxidtalk•contribs 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
How does the taxonomy look now? The majority of studies don't believe the color variants are separate species, but they are distinct enough to warrant recognition, especially since they are regional populations, and due to their desire in the aquarium trade, and some are more threatened than others. The red strain seems to be most prized, and is the most endangered population of the species. I'll mention that in the article.Esoxidtalk•contribs 23:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)