Talk:Woundfin

Woundfin was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 20, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 20, 2006.

What is the etymology of the latin name? argentissimus is "brilliantly argent-coloured", I think, but Plagopterus? Circeus 00:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentissimus is "most silver". [1]

I can't find a source for the genus, but Plagopterus might be from the words for "strike" or "wound" (as in "plague") and "wing" or "feather" (as in "pterodactyl").

Thanks for asking that. If I can get confirmation on the genus I will put it in the article. KingTT 01:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination failed

I have decided to fail this article for GA status for the following reasons:

1. I worry about references and citations in this article. For example, after stating a protected status based on a US federal government authority, it fails to link to this determination, which should be readily available. Also, the first reference listed provides for a lengthy source that would require tortuous reading to verify each fact provided. It is the responsibility of the editors to make sure each fact is easily verifiable per criterion 2 of the good article criteria.

2. This article is not broad enough for the subject matter. My first question upon reading this article was "oh, and how does this fish behave?". The section of "Diet" is but a sentence long and could be extended. Furthermore, what about mating patterns, causes of endangerment, what official steps have been taken, etc.? I feel as though this is an excellent effort for a "start" level article, but needs deeper research.

3. There are too many red links. What this says is that the article isn't introducing necessary concepts for understanding this article, but instead relying on these redlinks to explain crucial information. Since red links lead nowhere, I feel as though this article also fails the first criterion.

4. I worry about the legality of the image provided. Admittedly, this is my weakest area of review, but I expect easy verification of images before I rate them acceptible for GA status.

I encourage the editors to revise and resubmit for GA status after my concerns are addressed. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reviewing this image, unless a caption is included giving Mr. White, the photographer, his due, the photograph is quite illegal and should be removed. Chuchunezumi 06:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]