Talk:Stephanolepis cirrhifer/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool article, will review.
 * Thx for reviewing! --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * One generally does not use citations in the lead, you should mention the facts in the lead and cite them just in the main text.
 * I guess you could expand the lead slightly more, it is barely a bit over two lines. How about adding who described it and when, and its ecology?
 * What is the difference between food and culinary purposes? (not explained in the article)&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

 * Link described.
 * Fauna seems too common to link
 *  it was transferred to Stephanolepis by Jordan and Fowler in 1903 It would be better to separate this from the other half the sentence using "however"
 * The species name cirrhifer is from the Latin meaning "bearing fringes of hair". Looks better like : The species name derives from the Latin cirrhifer, meaning "bearing fringes of hair".
 * Please write the full names of Jordan and Fowler
 * ✅ --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Description and habitat

 * Link spawning
 * What is a "slight fin", and is there anything else distinctive about any of the other fins?&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Parasites

 * A part of this is unsourced.
 * The parasite image looks cluttering, the text looks much misplaced around it. Why not keep just the sushi image?
 * No need to mention the binomial authority for the parasite (Shiino, 1956)
 * I think this does not need a separate section, it will look fine under Ecology.
 * Why describe the parasite's life cycle here?
 * ✅ --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Uses

 * Why link Korea and not Japan?
 * Can genetic differentiation be linked?
 * You lay special stress on the fish's popularity in Korea, but you do not mention it at all in the lead.
 * ✅ --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * References: Ref. nos. 3 and 5 do not look very reliable to me.
 * ✅ Fixed. --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's all I had to say. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the article complete enough for GA?&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the additional information in the article. Do you have any more comments? Now please organize this information properly in the article. I do not think there are any other issues presently. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 04:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Spotted a few more issues :
 * The last line of uses doesn't start with capital; no source either.
 * Italics needed in Ecology for the scientific names
 * The thread-sail filefish is an omnivore, and can feed on plant or animal matter. Does not an omnivore necessarily eat both plants and animals? I guess you need not repeat it.
 * Just check if you have updated the lead with the new info as required.
 * Other common names --> Other common names include/are
 * ...broken stripes that range from medium brown to blackish. Juveniles of the species usually seek shelter... There should be a break between the two sentences, the second line marks the start of the ecology part, so make it a new para. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  06:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No more comments? Your views are required before we decide the fate of this article. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with the quality of the information, layout, language, references or formatting. I don't have much experience with GA process. The article is short, and by no means exhaustive but what is there seems correct and useful. I have no strong opinion whether it is sufficient, but what exists is OK. by my reading of the criteria. I will go with your judgment. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The article need not be long if it can not be helped, it should cover all that it can in the best manner possible. OK, so I took a final look at the article; the Fishbase citation is still there - it is not reliable. It can be easily omitted as it has not been used anywhere as a sole source for a claim. Please remove it. There are no more issues.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 15:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  16:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well, this can be promoted now. Cheers! Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 18:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The photograph's caption states "prepared as sashimi" which is mistaken. Sashimi is simply a cut of the fish. When it is placed on top of vinegared rice (as in the photo) is it properly called "Nigiri," "Sushi," or "Nigiri-zushi." Calling it sashimi is an error. , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.181.159 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you look into this issue? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 19:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)