Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Assessment/Requests

WikiProject Fishes's request for assessment focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Fishes-related articles. If you have made significant changes to an Fishes-related article and would like an outside opinion or a new assessment rating, please feel free to list it below.

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

Instructions

Add your assessment request to the list of awaiting requests using the example below.
Under your header, place a few comments relating to your request.
Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
Assessors: Please review awaiting requests and update the article's talk page template with your assessment.

Example

===={{la|article}}====
Comments relating to your request for an article assessment go here. ~~~~

Please place new requests at the top of each section.

This is not the place to discuss article assessment disputes. If you dispute an assessment, please use the Disputes section.

Current requests for assessment

Please add your request for an assessment to the top of the list. Fulfilled requests may be removed by any editor.

Galaxias arcanus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Galaxias brevissimus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Galaxias fuscus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Galaxias gunaikurnai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

---

Sommen charr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No sure if the article is low or mid importance. More has been writte about Sommen charrs than other charr populations. Also, I doubt the article is start class. As I made the article it would be better if someoe else reviewed it. Sommakoa (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brotula barbata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I know this requests page is mostly inactive, but just in case somebody happens to be watching this, I believe that Brotula barbata meets the C-class criteria based on WP:WikiProject Fishes/Assessment. It would be appreciated if someone else could reassess it as such, if they agree. Improvement suggestions would be much appreciated as well.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 00:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyGazer 512: Promoted to C-class. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ostorhinchus aureus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like to have the quality of this article changed: It's no longer a stub in the sense that it contains a synopsis of most non-subscription data made publicly available, although it can't be more than a Start-class, because so little has really been published about it. Thanks DitchT 08:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DitchT: Yeah, it's definitely no longer a stub - I've upgraded it to start class. :)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myliobatis goodei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this article could probably be upgraded to C-class. I know I can do it myself, but I don't really want to because A - I'm the creator of the page and the only editor who changed more than 15 bytes, and B - it would be nice to have a second opinion. If you think that it's not ready for C-class, improvement suggestions are welcome. I did look all over the Internet and add everything I found to the article (with citing the source, of course).--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 21:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessed as b-class - I'm not sure what the procedure is for marking things as done here (removing them? <s></s>? {{done}}?) LittlePuppers (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, LittlePuppers, I don't know. I don't think there necessarily is a standard procedure for now - as you can see, there are still entries from 2009. I've tried to look at other WikiProjects, but it seems that none of them actually have a page like this. I'd say just leave it as it is for now, particularly because this is a newer request - though we may should archive or remove some of the older requests. I personally would not support striking requests out, though, when they're finished.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyGazer 512: Looking back at the history for this page a couple people removed some old ones that were done, but I don't think 2 or 3 edits exactly makes consensus - and looking at other WikiProjects, the assessment requests pages are dead for most of them, too. Maybe that's something I should look into cleaning up - from a very small sample, most have well under half a dozen requests, so it's not an unfeasible project for me to take up. I'd say maybe reply to the request that it's done, and then remove it somewhere from a few days to a month later? Looking into this more, WikiProject Biography has a backlog of 71 requests ranging back nearly a year, although it's clean before that. Looking in the history of that it looks like people just removed topics once they were assessed. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed 3 ancient topics, which I think should be sufficient for now.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ostorhinchus cyanosoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like to have the quality of this article changed. Also its importance, since research on this fish has been widely cited regarding climate change and ocean acidification. Thanks DitchT 14:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DitchT, oh yeah, looks like you have been making some great improvements and additions to that article, so thank you for this. I've upgraded that to start class. It may be able to even be C class, but it could use some cleanup and follow the Manual of Style better. As for the importance, I'm not going to pretend I'm knowledgeable on that. Plantdrew, I've noticed that you seem to assess a lot of articles both for their quality and importance - do you think this could be upgraded to C class or to mid-importance? Personally, I don't think it's quite ready for B class yet (it's really hard to have an article get to B class), and I don't think it's important enough to be high-importance.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 23:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyGazer 512: I'd rate Ostorhinchus cyanosoma as C-class (lower C-class, but C-class nonetheless); it has referenced sections covering most of the basic information for a fish species. I'd keep it as low-importance; it doesn't appear to be very common an an aquarium fish, and the climate change research seems to be coming from a single groups of scientists; it is not a widely studied model organism. Plantdrew (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for responding. I'll do that - it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. :)--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 00:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated DitchT 11:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]