Talk:Pain in fish/GA1

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

I think this article has a lot of potential. For the most part the prose is great, easy to understand. The refs are great and the article is extensively referenced. The research section does a good job of detailing some important findings. I'm sorry but I'm going to fail this article for GA this time around because I don't think there's enough here to meet the comprehensiveness criterion, and I'm also concerned that some of what's in the article isn't focused enough; i.e. it isn't related closely enough to the phenomenon of pain in fish (see below).

Here are some suggestions for improvement, I'm sure you can get this up to GA status with some work. Please let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything.


 * Lead
 * Please see WP:LEAD; the lead should summarize the topic. In this case I think it's good the way you've introduced the topic and given historical background, but the lead should also summarize the sections giving info on neurobiology, important research, and the ongoing debate.
 * Find an excuse to link pain and fish in the first para.


 * Background
 * Most of the background section deals with how animals feel pain differently from humans, not fish per se. I think the Des Cartes info is good, but the general should flow into the specific, rather than leaving off with general info about all animals.
 * This sentence is a departure from the others in this para: Carbone writes that the view that animals feel pain differently is now a minority one. How did this change come about?  There must be missing here, we were just reading about how this was not the case as recently as the 1980s.  Were there some seminal experiments or changes in public sentiment that brought about the change?  Also, who is Carbone?  When using a term or name that's probably unfamiliar to the reader, introduce it, e.g. "Olympic gold medalist Edward Carbone writes..."
 * This sentence does not belong in this section: Veterinary medicine uses, for actual or potential animal pain, the same analgesics and anesthetics used in humans. If it is not specific to fish, I think it could just be taken out. If it does mention fish specifically in the source, how about moving it to the last section?  Or it might be advisable to have a separate "biology" section that summarizes the biology of pain as it relates to fish.  (e.g. where pain centers are located in the brains of animals we understand to feel pain, how these differ in fish).
 * A couple more minor problems with this sentence: some critics continue to question how reliably animal mental states can be determined. First, use of "some" is so vague it's unhelpful: how many?  If it's a strong camp or a significant minority, that's more useful info. Second, "critics" sounds a little POV, and I think it's one of the Words to avoid.


 * Research findings
 * Minor point, but the noun + ing construction is awkward: "resulted in fish rubbing their lips along the sides and floors of their tanks." You could say "in response to... the fish rubbed..."
 * This sentence is too vague: One researcher argues about the definition of pain used in the studies. What does that mean?  One researcher objected to the conclusions because of the definitions?
 * This section seems disorganized. I think it would help to explain the relevant neurobiology, e.g. neocortex, then in a new para or another subsection (or even a new section) cover the debate about whether awareness is necessary for the perception of pain.  That way you could have a more logical flow: "they have some of the same anatomy as us, but lack this and that.  They display these reactions to stimuli.  However, there's this debate about whether they have awareness and whether it's necessary for pain."
 * External links should not be in the article's body: The Norwegian Research Council is funding a...
 * The last para kind of falls flat because it doesn't deal with a finding, just states that they're going to carry out this research. How important is this?  Maybe it would help to explain how this will affect the state of research.


 * Laboratory fish
 * This section seems to have the same problem as the Background section: It doesn't relate too closely enough to pain in fish. The first para lists model organisms and the second deals with pain in lab animals.  It's possible that a few more sentences could tie this info together, but currently the section doesn't relate closely enough to the article's topic.


 * General
 * The lead alludes to an ethical debate, to implications of the presence or absence of the ability to suffer in fish (e.g. fishing laws). There's not supposed to be anything in the lead that's not in the article.  How about a "societal implications" section or "Ethical debate" section?  This could detail laws such as those brought up in the second para of the lead, and other social implications.


 * I think a few sections should be added. How about this for the layout of the article:
 * Lead
 * Definitions (explaining what is meant by terms like "pain", "nociception", and "suffering" and explaining the point of view that awareness is necessary to suffering, thus relating the discussion to fish) This is important because it seems like a lot of the conclusions depend on the definitions. I found some definitions here, p. 448.
 * Biology (describing the neurobiology of pain and how it relates to fish, e.g. pain centers in their brains) The same book, p. 449, discusses the presence of neuromodulators and neurotransmitters in fish. You could also discuss the evolutionary significance of pain responses and explain the state of research on how that relates to fish (e.g. "it's currently understood that lower vertebrates evolved the ability to sense this and that at this point, fish among them").
 * Research findings (with the info in this section)
 * Societal implications and ethics (you may find a better name for this) This section can subsume some of the laboratory fish section (perhaps as a subsection) if the info in that section can be tied more closely to the article's subject. I think the section also needs more discussion, e.g. about the ethics of and laws relating to fishing.
 * Of course during researching this you may find a better way to organize this, that's fine.

I'm sorry to fail this straight off, but I think my concerns about comprehensiveness and focus will take longer to fix than is usually allotted for the GA review process. But I do hope you'll keep adding to it, I think you'll definitely be able to get it passed with some improvements! delldot  &nabla;.  20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)