Wikipedia:Peer review/Fisher (animal)/archive1

Fisher (animal)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added and expanded this article extensively but would like someone else to take a look at it. It started out as Start-class but I think it is worthy of at least B-class. I would like to continue improving it until at least Good article quality. One concern I have is some of the prose might need some improvement. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks, Atrian (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Atrian. I'll have a go. I generally use a standard procedure:

• Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per WP:WIAGA.
• Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
• (Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
• Check for broken links and DAB pages - see User:Philcha#Tools.
• Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in the main text.

A GA reviewer will expect that you will do all this before the reviewer, as a review is quality control, not an article improvement service.

I may have second thoughts about some of my comments. So could you please wait for my "go ahead" message before responding. --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Coverage (Philcha)

See the GA criteria

• As males are twice the size of females, only the dominate males get to breed - in monogamous species the sexes are similiar, or the females may be larger because of the organs needed for conception, pregnancy and birth. Strictly only "as males are twice the size of females, only the dominate males get to breed" is relevant (see GA criteria). You may need another citation.
  Oh, I see section "Behavior" covers part of that. --Philcha (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Structure (Philcha)

Not in GA criteria but my own experience of writing and reviewing articles to GA standard. I recommemd:

• For Fisher (animal) I'd start with "Etymology" to tell readers that this animal does not eat fish. I'd keep pekan as is the basis for the Latin species name pennanti, but drop the other Native American names as irrelevant. --Philcha (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Then IMO sections that provide information should precede those that use the information. For zoology, that means the animal's anatomy and physiology, which you title "Description".
• "Behavior"
• "Range"
• "Fishers and people"

Once we've agreed on Coverage and Structure, that's the time to look the content sections in detail, including citations and prose. If you disagree of any of my comments, please tell me why - I'm fallible :-P

OK, it's time for you to go ahead. --Philcha (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment I think you need a ref for the fact that fishers were locally extinct in Pennsylvania, then reintroduced - see here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)