Wikipedia:Peer review/Violet goby/archive1

Violet goby

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's my first article. I think I did a good job on it, however I want other editors suggestions. After it has completed peer review I'm hoping to get it into the Featured Articles.

Thanks, Drew R. Smith (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Sasata
The article needs a lot of work. I saw up at WP:GAN; I suggest you remove it from the queue to avoid a quickfail:
 * article should be renamed to Gobioides broussonneti (specific epithet isn't capitalized; also fix this in the taxobox)
 * all instances of scientific name in article must be italicized (in taxobox too)
 * that taxobox picture has got to go - try to find a free pic from somewhere (shouldn't be too difficult, as it's an aquarium fish)
 * the lead section shouldn't be labeled as "Introduction", and should be longer (see wp:lead)
 * The "Taxonomy" section should be removed completely (all this is summarized adequately in the Taxobox)
 * every paragraph should have a citation (preferable, an in-line citation)
 * expand all one-sentence "paragraphs"
 * capitalization of "gobies" is inconsistent throughout the article
 * use convert templates to give both metric and imperial dimensions
 * headings should only have the first word capitalized
 * fix the numerous spelling errors (eg. Behviour, "despite it's fierce looks", PH, and more)
 * find a book or 3 to use as a reference rather than having to rely soley on unreliable websites (see reliable sources)
 * use the WP:citation templates to format your references (not strictly necessary, but makes the format more consistent, and more informative for the reader)
 * check out What is a good article?, Writing better articles and faithfully adhere to all suggestions
 * get someone else to copyedit the text after you've done all the above. If you're still serious about FAC, check out some of the other organism articles at WP:FA to get an idea of what the end product should look like. Good luck! Sasata (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

 * Agree about withdrawing from GAN. Have a look at Red-capped Robin for an example of depth of biology article.
 * I have made a few changes - too many small sections, and remove redundant wording. Headings should be short if possible.
 * Contentwise, I'd like to see alot more on general biology, to balance the aquaculture material.
 * Will try to chip in.