Asian arowana was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am currently working on a major edit to the Asian Arowana section and would appreciate any people who have particular interest in this article to keep a close eye out over the next week and comment on any changes. This will include changes to: Breeding, Identification, Commercial Aspects, Micro chipping, Recent licensing changes, future licensing changes planned, Genetic Research, Common Ailments, Feeding Advice, Footnotes, Images.
ShockTherapy (
talk) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Having come across an article on the redescription of Asian arowanas (Pouyad, Sudarto & Teugels, 2003), I'm going to rewrite parts of this article to reflect the new species described. Ginkgo100 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is looking great, but I suspect it'll have to be more comprehensive to become Featured. I don't see myself helping out much on this one, but I can suggest some new material, if you know where to find it:
Melchoir 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I initial inclination was to pass this article, but there are just too many sections vital to articles on living things missing. If the issues below are addressed, I will be happy to pass it.
While I feel like I now have a basic understanding of these fish, and what deliniates the different varieties, there are a few things I'd still like to see added to the article:
Other than that, looks good! Drop a line on my talk page when you've fixed these. Thanks! -- NoahElhardt 15:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been considering sending this over to Good Article review; it seems to be lacking some key points. Per the GA criteria,
Any thoughts on how we can clean this up? Thanks, -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 22:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think there should be some sort of discussion as how to handle the taxonomy, if anyone else is interested. There seems to be limited evidence of the varieties being distinct enough to be considered separate species. I've read 4 sources which don't seem to think there is enough variation to warrant new species, I'll cite those in the article, which find enough variation within the color populations, as well as using multiple genes. The Pouyaud et al. paper used just cytb, and morphometrics. It looks like they are more phenotypic than genetic differences based on what I'm reading. Based on this, I think it should be handled as one species, and phenotypic varieties. Also, the two citations in the first sentence (Some sources differentiate these varieties into multiple species), ITIS and the Pouyaud et al. paper are circular, because ITIS cites the Pouyaud et al. paper as justification for those additional species. Esox id talk• contribs 22:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Breaking down issues by GA criteria:
Other parts of GA criteria seem okay. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 01:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for all the edits. I took care of all the references, removed dead links and non-relevant ones. I removed some of the how-to parts, and I'll redo some of the other areas, like behavior, add info and rework the taxonomy. As for the IUCN data, it was updated in 2011 but the species has not been reassessed since 1996, so the article is accurate as to its listing status.
Esox
id
talk•
contribs 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
How does the taxonomy look now? The majority of studies don't believe the color variants are separate species, but they are distinct enough to warrant recognition, especially since they are regional populations, and due to their desire in the aquarium trade, and some are more threatened than others. The red strain seems to be most prized, and is the most endangered population of the species. I'll mention that in the article. Esox id talk• contribs 23:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Asian arowana. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Asian arowana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Asian arowana was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am currently working on a major edit to the Asian Arowana section and would appreciate any people who have particular interest in this article to keep a close eye out over the next week and comment on any changes. This will include changes to: Breeding, Identification, Commercial Aspects, Micro chipping, Recent licensing changes, future licensing changes planned, Genetic Research, Common Ailments, Feeding Advice, Footnotes, Images.
ShockTherapy (
talk) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Having come across an article on the redescription of Asian arowanas (Pouyad, Sudarto & Teugels, 2003), I'm going to rewrite parts of this article to reflect the new species described. Ginkgo100 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is looking great, but I suspect it'll have to be more comprehensive to become Featured. I don't see myself helping out much on this one, but I can suggest some new material, if you know where to find it:
Melchoir 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I initial inclination was to pass this article, but there are just too many sections vital to articles on living things missing. If the issues below are addressed, I will be happy to pass it.
While I feel like I now have a basic understanding of these fish, and what deliniates the different varieties, there are a few things I'd still like to see added to the article:
Other than that, looks good! Drop a line on my talk page when you've fixed these. Thanks! -- NoahElhardt 15:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been considering sending this over to Good Article review; it seems to be lacking some key points. Per the GA criteria,
Any thoughts on how we can clean this up? Thanks, -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 22:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think there should be some sort of discussion as how to handle the taxonomy, if anyone else is interested. There seems to be limited evidence of the varieties being distinct enough to be considered separate species. I've read 4 sources which don't seem to think there is enough variation to warrant new species, I'll cite those in the article, which find enough variation within the color populations, as well as using multiple genes. The Pouyaud et al. paper used just cytb, and morphometrics. It looks like they are more phenotypic than genetic differences based on what I'm reading. Based on this, I think it should be handled as one species, and phenotypic varieties. Also, the two citations in the first sentence (Some sources differentiate these varieties into multiple species), ITIS and the Pouyaud et al. paper are circular, because ITIS cites the Pouyaud et al. paper as justification for those additional species. Esox id talk• contribs 22:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Breaking down issues by GA criteria:
Other parts of GA criteria seem okay. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 01:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for all the edits. I took care of all the references, removed dead links and non-relevant ones. I removed some of the how-to parts, and I'll redo some of the other areas, like behavior, add info and rework the taxonomy. As for the IUCN data, it was updated in 2011 but the species has not been reassessed since 1996, so the article is accurate as to its listing status.
Esox
id
talk•
contribs 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
How does the taxonomy look now? The majority of studies don't believe the color variants are separate species, but they are distinct enough to warrant recognition, especially since they are regional populations, and due to their desire in the aquarium trade, and some are more threatened than others. The red strain seems to be most prized, and is the most endangered population of the species. I'll mention that in the article. Esox id talk• contribs 23:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Asian arowana. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Asian arowana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)