Talk:Southern black bream
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] GA Review
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- It is stable.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
A very well written article! I few concerns, however, before I pass the article:
- All one-two sentence paragraphs should be either expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs. The exception to this is the "introduction" to "Relationship with humans." Done
- I think that there's a fair amount of overlinking, both per WP:CONTEXT and the fact that the same terms are sometimes re-linked in rapid succession. I realize that, given the subject of the article, some things that normally wouldn't be linked need to be, but I think the linking could stand some trimming. The most egregious example that I could find was "rock" under "Distribution and habitat," but there are more that I'll leave to your discretion to clean up per WP:CONTEXT. Done - Removed all useless links, but i have kept some links from the intro in the body of text. This is to save readers from scrolling back up once they are down to the biology or fisheries section. Let me know if you would like more of these culled, but i think its ok now.
- "These methods have been popularised by a number of fishing journalists and television presenters, including Steve Starling and Kaj Bush who brought attention to luring various species of bream during the mid 1990s on Rex Hunt's Fishing Adventures." (Recreational fishery) requires a citation. Done Can not remember where i read that, in any case it is very trivial so i have removed those remarks.
- Ref #17 is broken. Ref #28 crashed my computer and forced me to retype this entire review, not that I think you can do anything about that though. Done Ref 17 has proper DOI, Ref 28 crashed because its Victorian... no seriously it works for me, you must have got unlucky (it happens to me occasionally as well).
This review was slightly longer the first time, so I may have missed some clarifying points, although I believe that I hit all my concerns. If something is unclear, please let me know and I will expand further. Anyhow, to allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, if you spot anything else or want me to go further with the changes, just say so. Cheers Kare Kare 08:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, everything looks good now and I will be passing the article! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 14:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks again for the review Kare Kare 04:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Categories: GA-Class Fishes articles | Mid-importance Fishes articles | WikiProject Fishes articles | WikiProject Australian biota articles | GA-Class Australian biota articles | Unknown-importance Australian biota articles | GA-Class Australia articles | Mid-importance Australia articles | Wikipedia good articles | Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs | GA-Class Good articles | Natural sciences good articles | Wikipedia Did you know articles