Talk:Fish/GA1

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

Reviewer: Just-a-can-of-beans (talk · contribs) 05:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Surprised it's not a GA already. I'll take up this review and see if it meets the criteria.
 * Many thanks for taking this on, and for the kind words. I see you've added the GA Table template already; this is mainly useful for summaries, as editing comments becomes cumbersome if the table becomes at all large. Best to create sections for "Comments", "Images", "Sources" (and more if needed) before the table, and itemise anything you want me to fix. The most important thing is to indicate that you have carried out spot-checks on a sample of the sources. I'll help in any way I can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yep, I've done this a few times now, and I just like the table as a way to organize things. If I end up giving it a hold for any reason, I'll make individual comments below the table so you can reply for each potential issue. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll wrap up the review this weekend - I don't expect to find issues when I spot check, given the quality of work I've seen so far :) Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality issues in the Conservation section
This is a tough section to address in a way that is neutral, presents both/all sides of an issue, and doesn't stray off-topic. But, the current section needs improvement. Here are issues I have, in the order I noticed them (not necessarily in order of severity):

1. The overfishing subsection does not adequately cover all sides of the issue. "the fishing industry is a major employer, so governments are predisposed to support it" - this is an understatement, and the given examples are all relatively wealthy regions. Worldwide, many regions with the worst overfishing are also impoverished. It is not merely employment, but a way of life for many people - and sometimes the only industry in a region. Yet, of course, that doesn't mean we can just let fish go extinct. It is a difficult issue, but I believe the current state of the page does not sufficiently address the perspectives of those who would push back against regulations, limits, etc.
 * I've extended the section slightly. The statement you mention is correct and studiously neutral on a contentious issue, describing the positions of both sides; it uses quiet language as is necessary in an encyclopedia. The key issues (on another article's topic) are briefly mentioned and cited, as is correct. I have however said that the viewpoints are "sharply differing", which is clear and neutral.

2. The Habitat destruction subsection is too short, and as a result, a reader may get misled. Firstly, there are no comments on the specific effects and scale of habitat destruction on the fishes - depending on someone's preexisting mindset, it is highly probable that they will either vastly overestimate or underestimate the problem, because this section basically mentions that it is a problem without explaining more. I think that you need to significantly expand that subsection to 2-3 paragraphs, providing commentary on the extent of effects, current mitigation efforts, habitat restoration, etc.
 * That would be straying quite far from this article's topic, which is "Fish"; "Conservation" is already a subtopic, to be summarized briefly; "Habitat destruction" is a sub-subtopic, to be mentioned very briefly with links to other articles. To put this in perspective, the "Conservation" section is 500 words, 10% of the article's main text, which seems about right for a subtopic. I've rewritten the section from fresh sources, giving specific examples of harms or potential harms.

3. The Invasive species subsection is a huge break in overall quality and thoroughness compared to other parts of the page. The first paragraph is a long, winding mess. It has many examples of bias (words like "obviously favoured" and "without precedent") and even if these were cited (they aren't), they would be inappropriate. There is only one citation for that paragraph and it does not seem sufficient to cover more than the latter sentence or two. I would recommend rewriting this section from scratch, and making sure to include mention of how invasive species play into marine ecosystems and fish specifically, vs invasive species on land.
 * I've rewritten it from fresh sources. Per my comments above, and because the different threats often occur together, I've merged the subsection and the previous one to 'Other threats'.

4. The Red List cited at the start of the section gives numbers from 18 years ago. I think it needs to be updated or removed. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Updated.

Spot check failures
Source 5 (Donoghue, Philip C. J.; Purnell, Mark A. (2009)) - The statement on the page which is supported (with this as the sole citation) is: "The evolution of fish began about 530 million years ago during the Cambrian explosion. At this time the early chordates developed their skull and vertebral column." This is not supported by the article referenced. In fact, the word "skull" is not mentioned in any of the text, and the Cambrian explosion is only vaguely referred to. The source actually contradicts what is written here, saying: "Nevertheless, from the example of gnathostomes, we should be skeptical of a direct causal linkage between genome duplication and organismal evolution—or any other causal mechanism of instantaneous evolution—in explaining the emergence of vertebrates. Rather, it is more likely that vertebrate characteristics emerged over a long and protracted episode of gradual change, but the organisms that record this transition are either not preserved or have not yet been recognized." Given that the source directly contradicts the Wikipedia content it ostensibly supports, and no alternative is provided, for a subject (evolutionary history) which is innately conjecture-based and subject to severe inaccuracy from unqualified sources, I consider this egregious.
 * Rewritten the paragraph; the early evolution is indeed contested, and the 2 sources in the paragraph, while both relevant and helpful, weren't properly placed, something that often happens in good faith as editors rearrange text for clarity. The point I'd make here is that multiple sources exist, and scientific opinions vary. We don't want to list a dozen sources beside each statement, and certainly this one needed improvement. However the GAN process is not meant to be like marking an exam; it's a collaborative process in which issues, sometimes major, are raised, and worked through; at least there is discussion on each point, often accompanied by editing, addition of sources, and so on. This is an interaction between editor, reviewer, and text, and that interaction is expected to take around a week of to-and-fro activity, steadily building through that ongoing dialogue to an informed consensus and an agreed and usually improved text in the process. The conclusions you draw, however, from a paragraph which was in fact cited to two excellent, focused, reliable, and relevant sources, both about what the researchers were saying and about the paragraph, are not justified. The paragraph never made any claim about genome duplication, for instance, nor did it ever assert that evolution occurred instantly rather than over a prolonged period: it mentioned the Cambrian, which lasted for over 50 million years, in fact. So assertions about direct contradiction are basically mistaken. It would have been much better to discuss the issues as part of normal GAN work, and we could quickly have reached a resolution of the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Source 69 - Citation is an article in The Guardian which is clearly written with entertainment, not accuracy or informative value, in mind. However, the specific claim using this source thankfully has two better-quality citations as well, so this one could be simply removed with no other changes and things would be alright. I am concerned by its presence, though, as it suggests that content which was not edited by you, Chiswick, has not been analyzed for its veracity. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, but with misgivings. Guardian articles are accessible to readers, being free to read and in plain language, which scientific papers often are not; we do not have a policy of banning or removing such things. Guardian science articles are written not merely to entertain but to educate and to inform (yeah, like the BBC), so I don't agree with the premise here, nor with the conclusion drawn. Describing this as a "failure" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts in this instance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)