Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teleost/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2016 [1].

Teleost[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk), Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the teleosts. When you think of the word "fish" its probably a member of this group that will come to mind. They have the familiar fish traits, gulping mouths, homocercal tails, ect. This article has been brought to GA status and we feel its ready for FA. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tim Riley[edit]

Nothing from me about the content of this formidable piece of work, but a few small quibbles about the prose.

  • BrEng or AmEng? The text is mostly in BrE ("analysing", "manoeuvrability", "specialised", "characterised", "aestivate", "metres", "fertilised", "practised", "travelling") but I spotted a few outbreaks of AmE: "coloring", "optimize", "specializations" and "behavior". I think it needs to be one or the other throughout, except within quotations.
Done, I hope; and I fixed some AmE diction, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • tassled – a word unknown to the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster alike. If we mean the creature has tassels, the word is "tasselled" in BrE and "tasseled" in AmE.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The adipose fin...is often thought to have evolved once in the lineage and was lost multiple times due to its limited function. However, a 2014 study challenges this idea..." – If this means what I think it means the first sentence needs a bit of fine-tuning: "and was lost" needs to be "and to have been lost" or similar if the next sentence reflects doubt on both the evolution and the loss.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Northern hemisphere" – our WP article on the subject capitalises both words, and so would I.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similiarities" I imagine is a typo, but I didn't dare assume.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there to affect my support, which I look forward to adding. – Tim riley talk 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim, hope that's to your satisfaction now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – An exceptional piece of work. Try Googling "Teleost" and you'll find nothing else that comes anywhere near the authority and comprehensiveness of this article. Easily meets all the FA criteria, and I'm very glad to add my support. Tim riley talk 21:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

This is a rather gigantic article, so will probably take me a while to review it all... FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In more advanced teleosts" Use of the term "advanced" in an evolutionary context is frowned upon in modern biology literature, and as the linked article also states, "derived" should probably be used instead.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to push the both the premaxilla and the lower jaw" Seems like a mistake.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems this article uses rather different (less lay reader friendly) headers than most other articles, anatomy instead of description, and physiology instead of behaviour. Not a big deal, but is there a reason why?
Those terms are more specific and more accurately reflect the contentsof the sections than your suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't my suggestions as much as it is just the standard headers used in animal FAs. But no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diversity would make more sense as a subsection under Evolution and phylogeny. It is good to present what a teleost actually is before going into their diversity and lifestyle.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "five branchial arches." Could be explained in-text.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If these be explained, it would be good to ensure some consistency in what all we define in-text. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see many other technical terms are explained in the very section, so it seems it should be more, not less... Per: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."[2] FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, added the note just to make sure the nominators check this. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pharyngeal jaws" Likewise.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and possibly some pharyngobranchials and a basibranchial." Why the uncertainty? Because only some have it, or because it is unknown which have it? Should be clarified.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In lower teleosts" As above, this is not terminology used today, basal should be used, and I don't see why we need a note here ("Closer to the base of the tree in the cladogram"), such a central concept should be explained in-text. Also, I can see you have used the term basal elsewhere, no need to be inconsistent.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In more advanced teleosts" Likewise.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to create two large upper jaws" Two as in one pair? Seems a bit ambiguous.
Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The caudal fin is" Link.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as most fish from the Paleozoic." Add era, some readers might not know what this term refers to.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more flexible then" Than.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are well calcified" Could be linked.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the female is much larger." Could be interesting to note by how much, for contrast.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and many such" Seems odd to me. Many of these?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "laterally compressed bodies" Could be explained this just means flattened sideways.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in whether you follow a common name by a scientific name. You are also inconsistent in whether the scientific name is put in parenthesis or not.
Rationalised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the giant oarfish, with fish of 25 ft " Sounds repetitive, why not just say specimen or individual, as you do later in the text?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are demersal fish" Explain.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The former "Chondrostei" is seen to be paraphyletic." This seems redundant in-text when you already mention it in a note.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How has this group been affected by various major extinction events?
I'm not sure, but as it does not seem to be referred to, probably less than some other groups. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a first hypural with a proximal end and a second hypural attach to a ural" This will be gibberish to most readers, including me. Explanations needed.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diversity" and "evolutionary trends" seem to overlap in scope. Another reason why they should be moved closer together.
Agreed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Acanthomorphs also developed spiny ctenoid scales" Why past tense? Readers might think the group is extinct, since all the rest is present tense.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "75% are endemic to the Arctic" 75% of what? Not sure I follow the sentence...
Clarified: it's 75% of the species found in the named locality. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should give the etymology of the word teleost outside the intro as well, preferably where you mention who named the group.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Teleosts, including the brown trout and the scaly osman, are found in" Are the commas needed here?
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a related species has been seen at" Why not name it?
It appears the fish hasn't be named yet. LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could mention this in parenthesis or some such, reads like an oversight now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The major means of respiration in teleosts, as in some other fish" Isn't this like in most other fish?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and even aestivate" Explain.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "Weberian organ" and "Weberian aparatus" in different places. If it is the same, it should probably be consistent.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk)
  • "and visual discrimination" Explain.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like an oversight that you don't mention the species that can walk on dry land under locomotion. I know they are mentioned under respiration, but not their mode of locomotion.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Multifactorial systems, involve rearrangements of sex chromosomes and autosomes." Why the comma?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still very inconsistent whether you follow a common name by a scientific name or not throughout the article, even within the same paragraphs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You briefly mention that male anglerfish are attached to the females, but what actually happens (the male degenerating to a sperm-producing outgrowth on the female) seems significant and divergent enough to elaborate somewhere.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and allow then to disperse widely" Seems a mistake.
Typo fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pelagic environment or a demersal environment." Could be explained.
Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some larvae were even considered different species from the adults." Examples? Sounds interesting.
I lost access to the textbook, but I don't recall them giving examples. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus the former "Chondrostei" is paraphyletic (not a clade), and is broken up." I'd say something like "and has been broken up by more recent studies". The current wording is a bit unclear.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a bit of an oversight that there is no word on conservation and pressure by humans under relationship with humans (especially since the section goes into detail about more trivial things). Are some groups endangered or extinct due to human activities? How are they affected by pollution, climate change, and overfishing? Etc.
Added a section "Impact on stocks" covering all of these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "In art" section seems to be about fish in general, and not teleosts in particular. Is it really relevant here, compared to in the fish article? Or could some more specific examples be mentioned?
I guess our task here is to show that artists represented teleosts, not any other animal; what goes in other articles is a separate issue. I've added another Haeckel. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was directed at the text (which seems to be about fish in general), not the images. Could significant examples of teleosts used in art be made in-text? FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both text and images are about teleosts. I've added a little about Haeckel since we have two of his images from Kunstformen der Natur, with a brief explanation of what he said he was trying to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure the first name mentioned in the article intro should be the title. Now you start with the scientific name, though the title is the common name. Any reason for this?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "take bizarre shapes like anglerfish and seahorses that are hardly recognizable as fish" Wording seems hyperbolic, and this info is not found in this form in the article body.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now. With the new Impact on stocks section, this article seems much more comprehensive. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the care and attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • I think the Importance to humans section could be expanded more. I mean, they are the biggest cash fish out there to say the least   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added a paragraph on fish products, their preparation and uses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also a section on human impact on fish stocks. We now have over 1000 words (about 1/8 of the article) on Importance to humans, which we think is an appropriate degree of coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Ok, taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure mentioning the other infraclasses is needed in the lead.
I would support their inclusion, better leave no loose strands. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 07:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not a deal-breaker anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


and few groups of vertebrates have undergone such an extensive radiation. - line is vague. It's really "none" as there are not 26,000 species of anything else with a backbone...(i.e. remove it)
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
migratory material I would move from diversity to distribution
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right!...now where was I......
I am not fond of the opening sentence as teleost is not a common/layword so is hence a short word signifying "member of teleostei". I also think the fact they comprise 96% of all fish should be up in here somehow. Maybe something like,
"The Teleostei (Greek: teleios, "complete" + osteon, "bone") are by far the largest infraclass in the class Actinopterygii, the ray-finned fishes, and make up 96% of all fish. This diverse group arose in the Triassic period. Known as teleosts, its members are arranged in about 40 orders and 448 families. Over 26,000 species have been described." (I'd ditch the bit about the other two infraclasses from the lead)
Ok, done that. I've put the other 2 infraclasses in a footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not call it a tail fin rather than caudal fin?
Done; I've put caudal in parentheses as we mention the caudal peduncle in the next sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
''macro-predatory - meaning "ate larger prey"?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
, and most living fishes are members of this group - redundant as the 96% is mentioned a couple of paras up.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several early and extinct teleost groups have been described and are placed phylogenetically between the basal neopterygians and living teleosts - this is pretty technical so could be written in plainer english. Maybe just describing them as early offshoots? "Early offshoots included the....(and then mention the orders?)
Done that. Said "branched off from". Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:In para 2 of Evolutionary trends, I'd give some examples to make it easier to read for laypeople. e.g. A sentence of what critters are elopomorphs, and Osteoglossomorphs after their mentions.
Done, same as next. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of the major groups of teleosts, the Elopomorpha (eels), Clupeomorpha (herrings) and Percomorpha (perches, tunas and many others) all have a worldwide distribution and are mainly marine; the Ostariophysi (carps and catfishes) and Osteoglossomorpha (elephantfishes) - i'd move all these bracketed names up to first mentions.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we're there..nothing else I can see to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sainsf[edit]

Hey, how did I miss such an amazing article? :) This is what I have to say: Sainsf <^>Feel at home 07:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and the kind words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead:
  • Should Greek not be linked?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weighing over two tons I wonder if we could have a conversion here...
Done: it's pretty wordy, and the numbers are about the same in all 3 cases! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ninety-six percent of all fish are teleosts I wonder if saying "96%" would make this less wordy...
I think we've been pulled up before for not using words for percentages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? But it should differ with the situation... I try to follow WP:MOSNUM on this. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 96% it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but WP:MOSNUM, in particular the WP:NUMNOTES subsection, is clear that you should Avoid beginning a sentence with figures. I think this trumps WP:PERCENT, another subsection of MOSNUM, which merely says the percent sign is "more common" in the body of scientific/technical articles (and this is the lede, not the body). So in this case "96%" should not start a sentence. Please restore "Ninety-six percent", unless you want to recast the sentence entirely. (I think it's fine with the words.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll put it back! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's difficult to remember the rules. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • they have a movable maxilla and premaxilla Not clear what "they" refers to.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most use external fertilization, I think this should end in a semicolon rather than a comma.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Anatomy:
  • Explanation for "holostean"?
Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if the meaning of "ural" is clear.
Said "at the end of the caudal fin" instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In lower teleosts, What does "lower" mean here? Would be good to link.
Added a note.
  • I think "advanced" should be linked, as has been done in the lead.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Diversity:
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea of the lightest teleost?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may consider linking (or explaining in some cases) filter-feeder, torpedoes, pectoral fin, dermal, catadromous, ectoparasite
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The adults spawn here then die "and then die"?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parasites" is mentioned in the first few lines of this section, but is linked a bit later.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • oscillating electric fields we may need a link or two here.
Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flatfish are demersal fish... This para looks like a sudden deviation from the ecology of teleosts. Better put this just before you begin with the facts on ecology, this looks more like a description of the physical characteristics.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camouflage is linked twice.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Evolution and phylogeny:
  • Greenwood et. al I think you should add who Greenwood is; it would not have been so necessary had the paper itself been cited, but as it is not it would be informative to let us know at least who it is.
Cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "et. al" is in italics at first mention, but nowhere else afterward.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to add who Near is, but optional.
As Near et al is cited, I think we can leave it as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Node values" and "calibrated" may need some explanation or links...
Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The teleosts are divided into the major clades "Clade" is a duplink here.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 800 species of elopomorphs have thin leaf-shaped larvae known as leptocephalus which are specialised for a marine environment. Is there an error in this line?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say either "elopomorphs" or "Elopomorphs"
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ostariophysi, which includes most freshwater fishes, developed some unique adaptations Why not "have developed" in this and the next line? It made me think this group is extinct.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explain scute
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Physiology:
  • and freshwater eels "eels" is a duplink
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • life in the sea but often migrates "migrates" is a duplink
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "countercurrent gas exchanger" is a duplink
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chondrostei such as sturgeons "Chondrostei" is a duplink
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly all daylight fish have colour vision at least as good as a human's It may be better to say "a normal/healthy human's"
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • spatial memory and visual discrimination Links or explanations.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "cold-blooded" should be appropriately linked.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Reproduction and lifecycle:
  • I think there is some minor inconsistency in the use of AE/BE. See this from the lead that are hardly recognizable as fish , Most use external fertilization, the female lays a batch of eggs, the male fertilizes them and having external fertilisation with both eggs and sperm being released into the water for fertilization. Internal fertilisation occurs in from this section. I think the instances of AE should be eliminated as we use BE in most places in this article.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar instances from "Mating tactics": Such coloration can be very conspicuous to predators, Smaller satellite males mimic female behaviour and coloration
Coloration is the British spelling, as in Adaptive Coloration in Animals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fewer then one in a million "than"?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority (88%) of teleost species "The majority" looks redundant.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the oviparous teleosts (Spawning sites and parental care) "oviparous" is a duplink
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Importance to humans:
  • Teleost fishes are I think just "teleosts" would do.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production is expected to increase sharply It would be good to add "According to the FAO,..."
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few teleosts are dangerous. Looking at this, it certainly is not an "importance" to humans. Why not rename the section as "Interaction/Relationship with humans"?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • small size, simple environmental needs For example?
The examples, namely medaka and zebrafish, are stated in the sentence above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplinks: tuna, carp, salmon, electric eel, zebrafish
Fixed, though given the distance to the other links, some may be appropriate here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link mutagen.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fish imagery however remained "Fish imagery, however, remained"
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I see no more issues with the prose now. This article has my Support. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review by Laser brain[edit]

Owing to the high number of images in the article, I'm not going to list them all out. I'll just list ones I have questions about:

  • File:Male macularius.jpg - Commons lists an incorrect license for this. If you click through to the source, he has marked it as non-commercial. Should be deleted from Commons.
Deleted image from article, nominated for deletion from Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CC by 4 fixed on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, I wouldn't die in a ditch for it, but we have 3 subsections under Humans, on economics, impact, and other, and each one has an image illustrating the activity. The fish farming image directly shows how humans, fish and the environment are related by the economic activity, so I'd say it was a pretty good picture for the job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, no argument here. Thanks for your replies! --Laser brain (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And many thanks for checking the images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. --Laser brain (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Teleost/archive1&oldid=1136095353"