Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Queen angelfish/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2022 [1].

Queen angelfish

edit
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most colorful fish in the Atlantic. As a popular ornamental it would make a nice addition to FA. Have at it. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Image licensing looks ok
  • File:QueenAngelfish distribution.png What is the source of the info?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 20:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

edit
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as wild population" → "as the wild population"
fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who moved it from Chaetodon to Holocanthus and when?
Lacépède did in 1802. Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For first use of mya, use the full form.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "angelfish are benthic" → Use the gloss from the lead here too.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "jellyfish, and corals, plankton and algae." → Remove the first "and".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "90% of the diet of adults are sponges" → "90% of the diet of adults consists of sponges"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "bryozoans".
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the inconsistency in linking only the genus in some of the prey species and the entire species in others?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the IUCN, as" → If you're using the full name in the lead, use it here as well.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Croatia and Malta.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I have made a few edits rather than list my suggestions here. Graham Beards (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Some of the claims made are cited to sources that are relatively old - for example, regarding the retail price for the fish. Are there no newer sources available?
There isn't very much on the species in the literature, so some of it is old. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on your search strategy? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google scholar and google books. I looked though several books which ended up repeating much the same information. I think the article has a good balance of old and new sources. LittleJerry (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting of FN2 is not consistent with other refs
How? LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an "in" between the title and work, the work is not italicized, and there is no retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes ETYFish a high-quality reliable source? Ricordea Publishing?
EYTFish is a database run by two ichthyologists and is reliable enough for what's being cited. Removed the other. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on why you believe it to be reliable enough? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is run by Christopher-Scharpf and Kenneth J. Lazara who are trying to create a comprehensive list of the etymology of fish names and how they relate to the species. [2] LittleJerry (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, she doesn't give passes. As her userpage states "I rarely support on the basis of a source or image review, although I may oppose on the basis of either." LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone has to outright "support". Gog the Mild? LittleJerry (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any further comments on the review. I don't agree on the first point but leave it open for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, obviously, is correct. Re Nikkimaria's point, I agree. I flagged up the same point in my review. Taking in good faith that there are no more recent sources for this I narrowly decided that I could support anyway. Probably not the easiest decision for the closing coordinator, but I think my position is clear. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the dockside Flordia price. LittleJerry (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Wretchskull

edit
  • There is an inconsistent use of cite dates. Some use dmy and others use mdy; also some are either month-year or year alone.
Journal articles all use just year. They don't have to be consistent with websites. The one website only gives the month and year. LittleJerry (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry: Okay, but mixing both dmy and mdy is not allowed. For example, one ref has the date "19 November 2021" and another ref has the access date "February 22, 2021" - they have to be consistent. There is even a "use dmy"-template at the top of the article.
They are consistent now. LittleJerry (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't, but I've taken care of that.
  • As a follow-up of the source review, I get 93 results when searching "Queen angelfish" on the Wikipedia library and sorting by "Peer-reviewed". Something to consider?
Looked through it. I ran into the same journal articles and the further you go, the less relevant they become. LittleJerry (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright.
Nope. LittleJerry (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.

Apart from these concerns, I can't pinpoint anything to cavil about. Well done - Wretchskull (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is that a "support"? LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support - Wretchskull (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial #

edit

  • ‐Humphrey Appleby: Know anything about fish?
  • -Desmond Glazebrook: Err, I eat it?

Placeholder for review. SN54129 19:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129? LittleJerry (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, LittleJerry  :) @FAC coordinators: does this page really need another review?! It's looking pretty promotable... OK, I'll do it! SN54129 15:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Range of the queen angelfish " -- does it only hug the coast of the Gulf of Mexico or swim throughout?
Look at the map. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not me that will be looking at the map, it is the WP:READER, to whom you have dedicated your Wiki-service. At at least one point the orange almost meets itself.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has been described as like it was "painted by someone trying..." -- quotes should be attributed inline.
Not if the person isn't well known. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; please point to where in the following pages (WP:MOS and WP:SUBSTANTIATE) that is supported.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "pughead" a quote? Coiuld be defined in someway, especially as I couldn't find a link.
It's in the paper. It's not a familiar term so i added quotations. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is pretty definitive that the QA breeds during the full moon. But under #Life cycle, this has been reduced to "sometime..." (also, should that be "sometimes?)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like the dockside price was from the 90s while the commercial price is of the present day?
Aleast at the time of the writing of the book. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not harvested too much" -- could be tightened to "not overfished".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 is that a support? LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't no, but grudgingly, it is niow  :) good work. SN54129 16:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "has been a particularly common exported species in Brazil." Perhaps 'has been a particularly common exported species from Brazil'?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and weighs" → 'and weight of'.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They occur from ... Its range extends ... They are" Perhaps standardise on "They"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the proportion of prey in their diet does not match that of the benthic community they inhabit." This doesn't seem to make sense. Or I am being slow - entirely possible. Could you paraphrase what you are trying to communicate for my benefit? Thanks.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "highly selective feeders". Highly? The source definitely says this? 30 different prey species would seem to argue differently. Not to mention the omnivorous "Queen angelfish feed on sponges, tunicates, jellyfish, corals, plankton and algae".
They are selective because they don't just eat the most commonly available food items. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Umderstood. It is the "highly" I am questioning. Is it solidly supported in a consensus of sources? If not (and possibly even if so) it may be best to drop the word as a little peacocky.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both before and after a full moon." As written that would seem to cover the entire month.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ascends the water column". What is a water column?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "swimming among gorgonians." Could gorgonians be explained in line or a more readily understood term used.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have a higher extended survival rate". What does "extended" add to this?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which have a more specialized diet." Do you mean 'which require a more specialized diet'?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout the 1990s". This is Wikipedia, do we not have more up to date figures?
Nope. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1995, the queen and French angelfish were nearly 75% of marine ornamental fish traded." Globally or at Fortaleza?
Fortaleza, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the wild population appears to be stable." "appears" → appeared'.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "raising concerns that it could infect native fish". And why would this be bad?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disease-carrying or disease-causing?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, finished. LittleJerry (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Two come backs from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I was giving this a read-through for potential promotion and decided I probably have enough questions I need to recuse.

  • "The retail price for the species may range from US$60 to $130" - the source here is fairly old for pricing information. If there's nothing newer that can be provided, I would recommend removing the pricing information entirely.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The queen angelfish is the most frequently exported angelfish species from Brazil." - I understand that this may not be something commonly discussed in the literature, but I just want to double-check that this is the most recent figure
It is. But I phrased it differently. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2015, an aquarium-introduced angelfish was caught in the Red Sea at Eilat's Coral Beach, Israel. The disease-causing bacterium Photobacterium damselae piscicida, which was not previously documented in Red Sea fish, was isolated from its kidney, raising concerns that it could infect native fish" - has anything come of this?
I found no further papers. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. This one looks to be in good shape. Hog Farm Talk 19:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, finished. LittleJerry (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to promotion - I didn't read the article close enough to give a support declaration, but my questions have all been answered satisfactorily. Hog Farm Talk 20:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: : Over a month and there's five supports and an image/source review. Are we ready? LittleJerry (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this later today. (t · c) buidhe 00:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Queen_angelfish/archive1&oldid=1075377502"