Talk:Elacatinus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.

Marine life To do: Have a look at the Marine life WikiProject and sign up. Here are some tasks you can do, as organized by The Marine life Wikiproject: Collaboration of the week: Tang Copyedit/extensive work: Ctenophore Expand: Articles Requests: Caesioperca, Caprodon, Plectranthias, Lepidoperca Stubs: Heteractis magnifica, Sea apple, Tube-dwelling anemone Other: See the projects page Images: Upload any non-copyrighted marine life images to WikiPedia Commons Featured Articles/Good Articles:

This article is within the scope of the Aquarium Fishes WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Fishes and is associated with the Fish Portal.

Elacatinus was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: September 30, 2007

A fact from Elacatinus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 28 September 2007.

[edit] tone is a bit advert-ish

"Hardy, beautiful, and useful, they are perhaps the perfect fish."

i'm surprised this got on the front page with sentences like that. i'm giving it a once over. 71.60.151.41 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you found the only advertisement toned sentence in the entire article. :( Do look it over, though. I don't mind constructive criticism. L'Aquatique ^talktome 19:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I moved the template I presume you added to the In the Aquarium section, since that seems to be the section that needs work. L'Aquatique ^talktome 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: On the basics, such as the format of names, the article does a good job of following Manual of Style and WikiProject guidelines. However, simply saying "see text" in the infobox is not acceptable. Listing all the species is a necessity; 16 is not too many to reasonably include. The introduction doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:LEAD in its current state. As exclusively a definition, it fails to constitute a concise overview of the entire article. The article also fails to follow a basic principle of encyclopedic writing: state the obvious. This is evidenced by the fact that no etymology is present for either the scientific or colloquial name. It may seem obvious why they are called neon gobies, but this still needs to be stated for the reader. When moving between topics, a clear transition needs to be given. Also, some of the writing is slightly vague or of poor word choice for a properly encyclopedic tone. For example: they live "in the rocks" might better be said as the sea floor, or similar. Not to mention that coral is a living organism, not rock.

2. Factually accurate?: There are several large sections which lack even a modicum of citations, the bare minimum being one at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. Inline citations are ideally desired for any statement likely to be challenged. All sections now present require more inline citations, but "In the aquarium" is especially in need of attention. As a side note: relying less heavily on Fishbase might be in order as the article expands. Though it is certainly reliable, leaning to much on a single source is undesirable. Part of obtaining a comprehensive factual accuracy is using a several solid sources abundantly.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article fails to address basic information, such as life cycle, their behavior (social habits with each other, breeding habits, etc.) and feeding habits (it says they are cleaner fish, but they do they subsist solely on this?) Out of all the issues, the most egregious is the fact that the article is so imbalanced in favor of their life in the aquarium. Though the wording doesn't blatantly violate this, the excessive focus on the fish in the aquarium smacks of a how-to guide.

4. Neutral point of view?: Though I wouldn't call the article a violation of NPOV at the moment, undue weight on the perspective of aquarium keepers could lead to serious flaws in neutrality in the future.

5. Article stability? The article is not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.

6. Images?: Present, accounted for, and well-used. If possible, it would be desirable to obtain a free image of E. oceanops because it is the type species of the genus.

Though this article did not meet the quick-fail criteria in an hard and fast way, it behooves me as a reviewer not to apply a hold period on any article which requires major improvements, especially ones that would take longer than the maximum hold of seven days. Thus, I have failed this article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I probably could have gotten a peer review to tell me the same thing, but oh well. Nothing lost, nothing gained. Folks, let's hop to it! L'Aquatique ^talktome 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)