Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Assessment

Welcome to the article assessment department of WikiProject Fishes. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Fishes articles.

Ratings are performed using the {{Fishproject}} project banner with additional parameters according to the quality of the article. When a parameter is used, the articles is placed into the appropriate sub-category of Category:Fishes articles by quality and Category:Fishes articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist

While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

Frequently asked questionsEdit

How do I add an article to WikiProject Fishes?
Just add {{Fishproject}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated?
There is currently a backlog of over 7,000 unassessed Fishes articles. Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?
Any editor is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
Where can I get more comments about my article?
The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

How to assess articlesEdit

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{Fishproject}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{Fishproject| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in unassessed Fishes articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scaleEdit

Importance scaleEdit

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Fishes.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analysed.

Requesting an assessmentEdit

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.


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


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 assessmentEdit

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)Edit

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

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

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


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

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[reply]

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

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[reply]

@SkyGazer 512: Promoted to C-class. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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[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[reply]

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

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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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[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[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[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[reply]

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



Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

  1. SkyGazer 512 (talk · contribs) - I've been assessing and reassessing articles related to fish already, so I'm in.


  1. Tkinias (talk · contribs) - Initiated WikiProject Fishes
  2. Dzhastin (talk · contribs) - I loves the fishes!
  3. Esoxid (talk · contribs) - Works in marine biology/ecology, benthic ecology.
  4. SCMurphy (talk · contribs) - Fisheries biologist (22 years), MS in Fisheries Management.

Example assessmentsEdit

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.


  • {{Fishproject|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=C}} - to rate an article at C-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{Fishproject|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{Fishproject}} - to leave the article un-assessed.


  • {{Fishproject|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{Fishproject|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{Fishproject|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{Fishproject|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance


The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.