Yellow clown goby was a 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.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Aquarium Fish 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.Aquarium FishesWikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium FishesTemplate:WikiProject Aquarium FishesAquarium Fishes articles
Key issue with this article: there is a complete and utter lack of inline citations to reliable sources. While reference material is present, you must attribute facts to particular sources with proper citations. Additionally, there is a {{fact}} tag present. This should be remedied before any renomination takes place. If you feel this decision was in error, you are welcome to seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTuckyTalk 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note i am NOT reviewing the article, but only 2 references is a bit lean, and the prose is only sparsely referenced. Also consider placing the range map in the taxobox as per WP:TXKare Kare 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, look at fish articles already passed GA for an idea of the amount of information and references needed. Going by these, you still have some work to do. Kare Kare 01:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have failed this nom. First of all, it is not comprehensive. Much can be expanded, both in prose and especially in citations. I recommend Convict cichlid as a sample article. To be specific, here's some things to work out:
"Equally bright as their coloration is their personality" is not a very neutral statement. Either remove it or find a source to back it up.
The description section is too short. Also, the dablink template is misplaced, it should go in the beginning of the section.
Where geographically does the goby live? You have a nice map, but more should be devoted into the text about the geographic location as well as the type of habitat it lives in. Are there any optimal preferences the fish have as to their habitat? These things should be addressed.
The "yellow clown goby" should not be boldfaced in the "Aquarium" section. It would also be better if you condensed all those short paragraphs.
Conservation status is a pretty short section and usually isn't a separate section for non-endangered species. It would be better if it were incorporated into the lead or another section.
The "Reproduction" section is better off moved above the "In the aquarium" section. It should also be more thoroughly cited.
All together, the Yellow clown goby article needs further work before it can reach GA status. Keep trying. bibliomaniac15A straw poll on straw polls 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
