| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pelvicachromis pulcher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Pelvicachromis pulcher has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
moved to Pelvicachromis pulcher edit
Common name is not in general use (ie: is confined to the aquarium hobby) and varies (krib, kribensis, rainbow krib -- on fishbase) etc. Moved to Pelvicachromis pulcher. MidgleyDJ 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
undid move and reinstated article edit
Created re: disambiguation different types of "kribensis". MidgleyDJ 08:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
GA feedback edit
I passed this article, since I felt it met the criteria. Improvements could be made to the "taxonomy" section to discuss congeners, the genus' place in cichlid phylogenies etc. I also prefer the citations st the end of sentences come before, rather than after, the period, but not everyone feels that way. Pete.Hurd 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
GA Reassessment edit
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pelvicachromis pulcher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
GA Sweeps: Pass edit
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Cich edit
Men 5.74.75.235 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)