Talk:Cichlid/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.


 * There are at least three dead links.


 * Taxonomy
 * This section needs reworking to avoid the external links in the "details can be found here" comments. External links should only appear in the external links section.


 * The last paragraph is rather vaguely attributed.


 * The citation style should be consistent throughout the article.


 * Range and habitat
 * "Chakrabarty concludes from his review of phylogenetic analyses that vicariance is the only explanation." Need to explain who Chakrabarty is.


 * Diet
 * The first paragraph, which contains the claim that "Cichlids are astonishingly diverse in terms of diet", needs to be cited. Who is astonished?


 * Images of cichlids
 * I'm unconvinced that this is an article that can justify the inclusion of an image gallery. I'd suggest replacing it with a link to Commons.

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As these issues remain unaddressed, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)