Talk:Pufferfish mating ritual

Peer review of article "Puffer fish mating ritual" by user Rd989
Very nice job on this article so far! In reading your introduction, I noticed some sentences are missing citations. The line “The white-spotted puffer (Torquigener albomaculosus) is a relatively small (10 cm) fish that was named in 2014 by a research group for the National Museum of Nature and Science.” especially, since this is a fact. Your line “The fish has a brownish-yellow body with white spots on it and the ventral part of the body is translucent” and some others could possibly use reconstructing to make the language more concise. For example, “The fish has a brownish-yellow body with white spots, and the ventral part of the body is translucent”. Just some extra punctuation and reconstructing possibly. Again, there are some sentences that are missing citations, just be careful of this. Figure 1 also doesn’t seem to be working, as I cannot view it. When using citations from other Wikipedia articles, make sure to reference the actual article it came from, not the Wikipedia page. This is done in your first citation. The layout of this article is very good, and everything you mention is clear and concise. Great pictures! They provide a good visual explanation. Great job so far! 😊

Peer review of article "Puffer Fish Mating Ritual" by user Nchs21

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Pmbanks Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pmbanks/Puffer_Fish_Mating_Ritual

Lead evaluation The introductory sentence doesn't discuss the topic well, it is very broad and doesn't mention puffer fish. To improve it start off with something like "mating rituals in puffer fish are....". The lead does a good job at discussing the topics that are discussed focusing on mystery circles and the differences between males and females. To improve the lead, you could discuss other species of puffer fish it has been observed in and note their genus/family, etc. The second paragraph of the lead discussing how it was observed overtime could be place in another section discussing the evolution and discovery of the behaviour.

Content evaluation The content in the lead discussing the characteristics of white spotted puffer fish may not be needed since it does not describe the "puffer fish mating ritual" as a whole but rather just a specific species. Rather than saying "the study specimens were collected off of..." it might be more relevant to say "it has been observed in areas like...".

Tone and balance evaluation The content added is neutral and does a could job of not seeming biased. However, other than the lead, the focus is primarily on "mystery circles". It would help develop the article if there were other sections discussing different aspects such as evolution. But overall is well structured and doesn't take a persuade the reader to a specific viewpoint.

Sources and references evaluation Majority of the article is backed up well by reliable sources except for some sentences including in the lead where it states "the white-spotted puffer is a relatively small fish that was named in 2014 by a research group". The sources used a relevant and all from the 2000s providing important information. The link of Amami-oshima Island does not yet exist so i think it would be better to remove it. However, to improve the article, including more references would help. The links of the citations work well.

Organization evaluation the content added is well written, concise, clear and easy to read. I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors. Rather than having two categories for mystery circles, i think it would be best instead to have 1 section "mystery circles" and break the other sections into subcategories since the paper is discussing puffer fish mating rituals not mystery circles.

Images and media evaluation Figure 1 is not appearing in the article, but instead it just describes what is in the image. Figure 2 is well captioned and in a relevant area but there is no citation. Figure 3 is well captioned and in a relevant area as well, but again has no citation.

New Article Evaluation The article is supported by 2-3 reliable sources that discuss the topic. The sources are relevant and provide important information but a wider variety of topics could be discussed rather than just mystery circles. The layout is good but could be improved by adding sub headings rather than new sections.

Overall evaluation Overall this draft is a good start to the article and is concise clear and well structured. To improve it, discussing more aspects of puffer fish mating rituals would help, as well as adding in more reliable resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nchs21 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review of article Puffer Fish Mating Ritual by user sophiagibbons
The lead to this new article is most definitely interesting and full of facts but is not completely concise. It doesn't start with an introductory sentence describing the exact topic, it does over a couple of sentences instead. Another thing I did question was if the mating ritual was just with the white-spotted puffer fish or with each species of puffer fish, because if it is just with the white-spotted species the title should be adjusted to White-Spotted Puffer Fish Mating Ritual to be more specific. Other than that the lead explains what is to be mentioned in the article and does so in a concise way.

The content that has been brought into this article is neutral and doesn't seem to be biased toward any specific topic although I did find there was a slight underrepresentation of the mating and parental care compared to female choice, but that may also be due to the fact that there may not be a lot of information on wither of those two topics. Also allowing for a section for the male contribution in the mating ritual that occurs rather than adding it into female choice could potentially give a clearer representation to the topic. As I read through I did not take notice to any grammatical errors which is good.

The content and sources are all up to date, with every single one except one being a reliable source for available literature on the topic. The sole sources that I thought should be further looked into would be the BBC.com article and an attempt to find where that information came from would be better for the overall article. All other links work perfectly and are great sources of literature for the topic.

The images in the article are positioned in a way that compliments the article and the two that are working adhere to wikipedia's regulations. The first image for some reason does not allow me to view it that may have to do with the copyright regulations or just the overall image itself has something wrong with it. Each caption is clear and concise in what is being shown.

As this article is new it has to be reviewed under wikipedia's notability requirements, and through my observation it seems to meet them by having over 2-3 reliable sources, containing 6 in total, 5 in which I believe are a wonderful source to represent the topic, I am sure there is more literature available but it is just a first draft of the article so there can definitely be more added. The article is represented well and follows the patterns of other relevant wikipedia topics, it even references other articles including Courtship Displays and Mating Rituals.

The article is brand new to wikipedia and I believe this user has included an abundance of content that aids in the understanding of this topic. It is full of specific information which is well sourced. By following the slight improvements mentioned above, this article will grow to be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SophiaGibbons (talk • contribs) 01:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)