Fish in culture is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by Chiswick Chap (talk) at 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC) An editor has reviewed the article, and left comments on the review page. However, this editor has requested a second opinion either from a more experienced reviewer, or someone with more expertise on this subject, to gain further consensus that this article meets the good article criteria. In the meantime, editors are encouraged to revise the article based on the first reviewer's comments. Short description: Depiction of fish in human culture |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Fish in culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Closed Limelike Curves (talk · contribs) 15:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments
edit- @Chiswick Chap Two main comments on this GAN:
- 1 I feel like the discussion of fish in mythology and religion is a bit light. It feels like it doesn't discuss lots of overarching themes—I don't really know much about how or why fish are used in mythology.
- Added a bit on the overarching themes, especially in Persian culture, and a supporting image. The section is already quite long, and it contains 16 sources, which is pretty good, I'd have thought.
- 2 The introduction feels like it's a digression that just describes what "Culture" is in general, which doesn't strike me as necessary.
- The lead just summarizes the body of the article.
The context paragraph on culture is provided to distinguish the general meaning (as used here) from "popular culture" and from "[high] culture" like classical music or fine art. Without a clear definition in the article, the rest of it would make no sense to some readers.- I've removed the context section and the mention of it in the lead, and extended the lead to summarize the article's contents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- The lead just summarizes the body of the article.
- – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking this on. I'll get to your comments as soon as I can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've replied to your comments above, and to the visitor's comments below. Decisions on the GAN are yours alone. I'm now less busy and will respond to any further comments or suggestions you may have promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a short section on the related science. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've replied to your comments above, and to the visitor's comments below. Decisions on the GAN are yours alone. I'm now less busy and will respond to any further comments or suggestions you may have promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking this on. I'll get to your comments as soon as I can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
WriterArtistDC
editExtended content
|
---|
The academic study of "Fish in culture" has a scientific term: Ethnoichthyology. I do not know why there has apparently never been any discussion of merging the two articles and choosing an appropriate title. I can understand not choosing ethnoichthyology, a term that few would type into a search engine, but it should be included in the opening of the merged article. The existence of a hierarchy of interdisciplinary fields of study on the relationships between humans and nature makes the definition of any WP article on the topics based upon an interpretation of a textbook definition of culture not only unnecessary, but an exercise in synthesis as outlined in the discussion in Talk:Human uses of living things#GA Reassessment which delisted that article. In addition, the textbook cited is no longer in print, so cannot be accessed by any reviewer. It has been succeeded by another edition by the same lead author.(Macionis, John J. (December 11, 2018). Sociology (17 ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 9353066387.) However, there is no need to reinvent the wheel, since the field of ethnoichthyology provides references for the context for this article, an example being:
--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
|