Wikipedia:Peer review/Asian arowana/archive1

Asian arowana

I have put a lot of work into this article, with the hope that it might one day reach FA. I would like other eyes to review it for completeness, organization, and style, and would also welcome (more accurately, "jump for joy at") contributions of content. --Ginkgo 100 ^talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

balloonman

what does 'piscivorous' mean, should be included in the article.
Ditto "osteoglossids." I'm of the camp that when introducing complex terms/ideas, even if a link is available, the reader should be able to know what is talked about by a brief explaination.
"all Asian arowanas were placed in this species" = S. formosus?
One thing I've been seeing is a dislike for bullets... but I'm not sure if there is a better way
Needs more wikilinks...
I'm not a big fan of long sentences such as, "Inclusion in the IUCN Red List as endangered was originally based not on biological reasons, as they are widely distributed throughout southeast Asia, but for practical ones, because it has been collected heavily by aquarium collectors; nevertheless, habitat loss is likely a greater threat than aquarium collecting."
I believe the wiki standard is to list one currency only---not two.

Overall this is a very good article, but very scientifically based, which may cause some readers to lose interest, particularly in the section where you are describing them. It is probably ready to be nominated for GA. Which is where I'd go next... then come back to Wikipedia:Academic peer review Balloonman 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil916

Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style (Lead Section), the lead section "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". It should summarize information contained in the article. Presently it contains information that is not repeated elsewhere.
Comprehensiveness issues: The article needs significant expansion in the following areas:
- Habitat. Where does it live? Describe the water chemistry? What part of the world? Include a range map.
- Food. What does it eat? What types of fish? Do adults only eat fish, or are they more opportunistic and eat other fish and insects? How about juveniles? Do they strictly eat insects, or is it more in the category of "anything that fits in its mouth", such as crustaceans and worms?
- Taxonomy. Evolutionary history would be a bonus, but the article is unclear whether it's about one species or several. Expand on the dispute on classification. If scientific consensus is that it is four distinct species (not "strains" as mentioned in the article), then the article may be best split into species articles and the term "asian arowana" turned into a disambiguation page.
- Conservation. The article mentions that the Asian arowanas are listed as endangered. Are all four proposed species endangered? What is the historical and current population estimates of each species? What steps have the various national governments taken in order to prevent overexploitation of the species? If none, then specify.
- Reproduction is too focused on breeding on captivity. In the wild, how often do the fish spawn, how many offspring are produced, how long does it take the offspring to reach maturity, and what is the average survival rate?
Copyediting issues:
- The "strains" section of the description is confusing and listy. This should be scrapped and rewritten.
- "Appearance" is way too jargon-filled. People without scientific knowledge should be able to read the prose and understand what the fish looks like without having to look up words like "elongate", "oblique", "gill rakers", "vomer", "palatines", "pterygoids", "parasphenoid", "cycloid", etc., or provide a diagram with general anatomical features for the reader to refer to.
Use the cite templates for references (i.e. {{Cite journal}}, {{cite web}}), information contained in the references list is very inadequate.

Hope that helps for starters. In its current form, I think the article falls short of the Good Article criteria (especially comprehensiveness), even though I notice that NoahElhardt passed it on 1 December, 2006. It definitely needs a lot of work to meet the featured article criteria. Neil916 (Talk) 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]