Wikipedia:Peer review/Little tunny/archive1

Little tunny

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because our class has worked to improve this small stub on the little tunny into a credible and correct article. We are submitting the article so it can be reviewed by fellow editors in the Wikipedia community and to have flaws pointed out so they can be properly fixed. This is one of the most important steps towards the article hopefully reaching GA or even FA, because we need the experience and knowledge of scholars and other veteran Wikipedia editor. My class and I are ready to have our errors pointed out and are prepared for the criticism that will come, because we are ready to make this article a much higher quality one, worthy of recognition as a GA or FA. We would love to know what vital information is not present, or if there is flawed information in the article. If there are grammar mistakes or missed references, we would also appreciate it if they were pointed out. Any and all words of advice and critiques are welcome. Thank you, M rickabaugh (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Some more images would be nice, is this our little guy File:XRF-Euthynnus alletteratus.png?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly him, perfect for the Physical Description. Thanks, I have already added.--M rickabaugh (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Images look good, now there should probably be alt text. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images for more information on how to include it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added alt text to the to pictures, but I didn't know what to add for the range map.--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Something about evolution is needed, me thinks. 1591 words is a wee short for FA given this is such a common fish, but everything looks good for GA. --mav (reviews needed) 00:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In what sense do you mean evolution? By possible ancestors, or traits attributed to evolution, or something else entirely?--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cladistics mostly. A paragraph in the taxonomy section would work. See Ocean_sunfish#Naming_and_taxonomy for a good example. Just enough info for the reader to get an idea of how this species fits into its genus and family should be enough. Also, if there are any unique adaptations, such as, for example, the lack of swim bladder, then try to find out what researchers think why that trait evolved. Same for other unique traits; just try to see if there is info on why those traits may have evolved. --mav (reviews needed) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

1. The article is short, is there things missing? References are few, in part because it's short. Typically GA articles(I guess this is where it's heading) has about 50 references. Having fewer is not a problem, just making an observation that may suggest an incomplete article.
2. Is anything known about how long it has existed. The genus Euthynnus possibly has fossil records.
3. Typos in first reference depaartment, typo throught. What is clupeid, interpelvic, stomatopods, tunicates, vomer, finlets, isopods, corselet, atlantic bonito - these words are not obvious to me and suggest the could do with a wiki-link (even if a not found 'red link').
4. Cited Texts (unusual section heading), capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case per MOS:HEAD. Put list in alphabetic order i.e. of main author lastname.
   • I think I have done what you suggested.--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
5. There are some anchors after the categories and other language links, they won't work down there, suggest keep all the anchors together.
   • Taken care of.--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
6. For the alt on the map see Loggerhead sea turtle or http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?page=Loggerhead_sea_turtle
   • I think I might have taken care of it, but when I looked at the alt text it looked like it applied well already.--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
7. References. Least Concern in the taxobox does not appear to be referenced in the main text. What reference covers the second paragraph in 'Distribution and habitat'? Add some more references to cover these. Last sentence of Feeding habits also.
8. Cathleen Bester explains about common names of 'Atlantic little tuna' - Google loves this, suggesting it really is a common name, add to the text.
9. Also loads of synonyms from Bester (Euthinnus alleteratus, Scomber alleteratus, Pelamys alleterata, Gymnosarda alletterata, Euthynnus alleteratus alleteratus, Gymnosarda alleterata, Euthynnus alliteratus, and Euthynnus allitteratus) for taxobox. So these must have a history.
10. What makes Bester a reliable source, does that source have any editorial oversight? I ask because you talk of even reaching FA with this article. Because it relies heavily on that source it may become an issue. See if you can find the same information in other reliable sources.
11. When you start out using Wikipedia creating neat citations is difficult but see if you can clean some up. reference #3 especially. Try this.
12. http://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/SCRS/SCRS-08-189_Macias_et_alf.pdf and http://www.iccat.int/documents/cvsp/cv062_2008/no_5/CV062051638.pdf have information about this tuna, use them if you can!
13. Hunting for pictures http://www.flickr.com/photos/jedstr/361589619/ could crop it.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have some concerns about the legitimacy of current ref #3 (gofishn.come, is there really nothing better?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick Comment: Nice little article. I would have liked more wikilinks, eg. to some of the fish body parts in the Physical Description section.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Quick Comment:I noticed the image captions have different bolding schemes for "little tunny," these should ideally be consistent. I think un-bolded is fine.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment:I would stay clear of this source (GoFishn), seems to be a mirror site of wiki (even if it's not I still don't think it's reliable).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)