Talk:California sheephead

California sheephead was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 6, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 30, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Food and drink Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Fishes Mid‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Added Behavior Section[edit]

I'm a student at Washington University in St. Louis, and I added a large section on Behavior of the California sheephead. I also added some more information in the Description, Etymology, and Fishing sections. Ldorn1227 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

What do you mean that the feeding territories are very productive? For the first sentence of the predation section, does the sheephead or its prey release the signals? Is this section about it being a predator or prey? In the sex change section, how does the body know when changing sex would be the better option? Overall I thought that this was a very well done entry. I also made other grammatical changes. The sections were well divided and a widespread distribution of behavior topics was discussed in detail. These are just a few areas for further elaboration that I noticed when reading this entry.

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs citations[edit]

I tagged the article for needing citations. I looked (briefly) myself, but could not corroborate the claims of overfishing and behavior leading to population decline. Even on the watchlist site it is very mealy-mouthed about whether the fish is actually in decline or just "intuitively" threatened, since it has recently (in the last 20 years or so) become a favorite recreational fishing target. I will look into it further but any help is appreciated. Mracew (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

The overall article was excellent. I fixed one minor grammatical thing, but other than that, nothing needed to be changed.

Alex G Zhang (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Writing edits

Grammar errors corrected (Almost no grammatical errors found.)
Well written!

Suggestions:

The subheading “Population movement” seems a little misleading. I think “Daily movement” might be more appropriate, because population movement suggests migration of the population, which is not the content of this subsection.
“Habitat” does not necessarily belong to “Behavior,” but the author did a good job in incorporating the information to behaviors.
Additional topics: Mating

Good job! Allasse0927 (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this article is not ready for GA status at this time. However, I can offer you a few pointers on what needs to be done before renomination.

The lead section does not adequately summarise the contents of the article. The lead should summarise what the rest of the article says, and should not include any information not elsewhere. Because of this, it does not usually need any citations.
The structure of the article needs some work. Information is currently organised in a rather hap-hazard way; the featured article on the silky shark may not be a bad model. I'd do something like this-

[Lead]
-Description
-Taxonomy
-Ecology
-Distribution and habitat
-Ecology
--Feeding
--Predation
--Breeding and life cycle
--Migration and territoritality
-Human interactions
-Conservation status
[References and external links]

To add to the above point, while the writing's good, you need to try and keep information in the appropriate section where possible (this also cuts down on repetition). If you keep to the structure above, and try to keep (for instance) information on the distribution in the distribution section, the article would flow a lot better.
The article needs a bit more on the taxonomic history of the species. Who first described it? When? Are there any synonyms?
You need a more detailed physical description.
You should do away with the gallery section. If the images belong in the article, use them in the article; if they don't, don't.
ISBNs, DOIs and external links can help verify sourcing; for instance, it's not clear what kind of sources the "California Sea Grant College Program" citations are. Are they reports? Web pages? Journal articles? The Google Book link would be best cited as a book, rather than as a bare url. That said, the sources you do cite mostly look to be very good.

I've no doubt that once you've worked on the above issues, this will be ready for GA status, and I'd be happy to offer another review when you renominate. If you're looking for advice, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page, but I'm no fish expert; if you need one, you may want to contact Yzx (talk · contribs). Don't be disheartened- the research is good, it just needs to be arranged in a Wikipedia-friendly way. J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: response to GA nomination[edit]

Thanks so much for your feedback! I'm in the process of making the proposed changes to the article, and I'm planning on submitting it for Good Article nomination soon. Ldorn1227 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:California sheephead/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, my first comments (going section-wise):

Lead[edit]

Please write Semicossyphus pulcher, the California sheephead, as The California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher).
pressures should be pressure, I think.
Perhaps you could enlarge the lead with more relevant details discussed in the article.

Description[edit]

Use convert templates here.

Ecology[edit]

protogynous, sea urchins,benthic,foraging, Diurnal ,ambits,spawning are duplicate links. delete them.

Human interaction[edit]

before they’ve Write they have.
Morphogenesis,CDFG are duplicate links.

Other suggestions[edit]

It is important to include a "Taxonomy and naming" section, that clearly tells the scientific name in the first line (also tell which genus and family it belongs to), then elaborates about its taxonomical history. In general, state who first recognised the species, mention any relevant studies made based on this species' taxonomic relation with other species, and say about subspecies (if any). You may also discuss how synonyms came into existence.
Don't keep the etymology section. Rather transfer the data into this new section.
Use more images (if available)
I am not sure as to what aspect "Biology" section clearly refers to. I would rather not have it. Distribute the data here in other sections as it seems proper.
Look at all the headings. Don't write "h" in Habitat in the upper case, and so on.
Rewrite ref. 16 properly.

Please see to these slight errors, and include the Taxonomy and naming section. Then I believe this can be promoted to be a GA. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, but I have to fail this article, because you have not responded since fifteen days. This should not discourage you, however - you should go on with your good work. But please don't be late to reviews. Good luck! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California sheephead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California sheephead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202232512/http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/animals/AnimalDetails.aspx?enc=n3f4wmcSJaNu4Cp%2FcHd0%2FQ%3D%3D to http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/animals/AnimalDetails.aspx?enc=n3f4wmcSJaNu4Cp%2FcHd0%2FQ%3D%3D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]