Talk:Banded archerfish/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ucucha 12:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there anything you can say about interactions with humans outside its use as an aquarium fish? Is it fished on or eaten? What is their conservation status?~~

More comments will follow after I read the article more carefully. Ucucha 12:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead does not need citations, though you can keep them if you want.
~~Anything about its relations to other species in the genus?~~
~~Technical terms should be briefly explained: operculum, caudal peduncle~~
~~"This reflects a great deal of accurate prediction on the part of the banded archerfish." - do we even need this sentence? It is mostly implied in what comes before it.~~
~~"The study concluded that observing fish are somehow able to use angles and distances observed from other fish while shooting themselves." - not entirely sure what this means~~
~~Distribution seems oddly construed; surely Australia would be the southernmost part and Vanuatu the easternmost?~~
Sources:
- ~~Is Weber and Beaufort 1936 volume 7 or 4?~~ That's fixed, but it's still oddly formatted, as it now has the same text twice.
- What makes the following reliable sources:

Ucucha 13:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC) & 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC) & 18:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I have addressed most of the points raised above. The IUCN redlist does not seem to have an entry for this particular species. I have found some information about conservation, but it it fairly little so I created a larger section "Relationship with humans", into which I made a subsection of this information and the information about the fish in captivity. One of the sources I have added[1] has advertising but seems reliable from their about statement. Could you clarify what you mean by "Anything about its relations to other species in the genus"? Do you mean relations as in anatomical comparison, or as in actual interaction? Intelligentsium 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually meant was phylogenetic relationships, so which species are most closely related to it. But either of the points you mention would also be interesting if you can find information on them. (When you don't, that won't mean I won't pass it, though.)

Yes, mongabay.com looks pretty reliable. Thanks for the fixes, but one of the new sources you added also seems of questionable reliability. Ucucha 18:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that was a personal site; at first I thought it was run by the Nature Park itself. I will have to correct that later tonight unfortunately; I have to leave now. Intelligentsium 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all mentions of that source and added more reliable sources to support the information, or removed it where a more reliable source cannot be found. There does seem to be some anatomical comparison at [2], but I think it is rather odd for this information to be at the Apple website. I am not sure how reliable it would be. Intelligentsium 01:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an added note, the article seems to be receiving a bit of vandalism as a result of its appearance on the main page. Intelligentsium 01:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that happens. I think that source is acceptable under WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper), as the author of that page has written an apparently well-regarded book on brackish-water fishes. Ucucha 01:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison section has been added under Description. I have also clarified the distribution to emphasize that southern Australia and Vanuatu are the southern and eastern limits of its range, respectively. Intelligentsium 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The sentence about its being amphidromous has become uncited due to one of the source shuffles. Ucucha 23:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the uncited facts—while I could find another Internet source saying something to that effect, I had qualms about its reliability. Intelligentsium 23:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but actually I was referring to another sentence, which is currently not tagged, at the end of the distribution section. Ucucha 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) There is a book that has a chart mentioning T. jaculatrix is amphidromous. I have added it as a source. Intelligentsium 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's enough for me to pass this article as a GA--congratulations! Ucucha 00:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. Your suggestions and observations were very helpful in improving the article. Cheers, Intelligentsium 00:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]