Talk:Sleep in fish

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 31 August 2014 by reviewer Howicus (talk · contribs).

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.

Neuroscience

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Why the tag?[edit]

I see that this article has received a tag saying that it has multiple issues, namely that it is "is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay", and that it "contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information". As the original author of this article, I beg to differ. There is objectively nothing resembling a personal opinion in this article. Almost every sentence is accompanied by references to scientific publications. Sure, the second sentence under "Absence of sleep" starts with "It is argued that...", but surely there is nothing wrong with presenting a serious hypothesis that has been put forward in a scientific publication? As to the charge of vague phrasing and unverifiable information, this boggles my mind. Could specific examples of this be given? Again, the article contains numerous (48) references, mostly to the primary literature. I respectfully submit that this tag should be removed.

Reference 6 and 25 are equal[edit]

6
Zhdanova, I.V., Wang, S.Y., Leclair, O.U., and Danilova, N.P. (2001) Melatonin promotes sleep-like state in zebrafish, Brain Research 903: 263–268. Yokogawa T, Marin W, Faraco J, Pézeron G, Appelbaum L, et al. (2007) Characterization of Sleep in Zebrafish and Insomnia in Hypocretin Receptor Mutants, PLoS Biology Vol. 5, No. 10, e277 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050277 and criticism and rebuttal, at PLoS Biology

25
Zhdanova, I.V., Wang, S.Y., Leclair, O.U., and Danilova, N.P. (2001) Melatonin promotes sleep-like state in zebrafish. Brain Research 903: 263-268. Øyvind Teig (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why not just fix it :) --Epipelagic (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first, second paragraphs are just wrong, the 'definition' is also wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikslkd (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"sleep with the fishes"[edit]

What is the connection? It might be useful as a cultural reference.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]