This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a VERY comprehensive and well-written article. Here are a few edits I think would be helpful...
Overall, nice job. Very comprehensive article! Ldorn1227 ( talk) 20:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
This article mainly just included a very long Behavior section, and was pretty well established by the time I edited it. However, I did make some edits and changes. Hyperlinks I added: testes, cooperative breeding, parasitism, testosterone, 11-ketotestosterone, androgen, agonistic behavior
In the “Cooperative Breeding” section, I took out the sentence “The presence of helpers is beneficial to breeders” because it didn’t fit well where it was placed, and is addressed multiple times in the next paragraph. Leaving it in would be redundant. I ended up making some minor grammar and wording edits to this section, as well. There were quite a few phrases that were in the passive voice, which I changed to active voice to make it read easier and clearer. The section on “Flexibility in Dominance Hierarchy” needed a bit of grammatical and sentence structure work, and I tried to fix most of this. The author should consider going back and reading through it to fix it up and make sure it reads clearly. In the “Grouping” section, I changed 1-14 to write it out as “one to fourteen.” This reads better and looks more professional.
Overall, I only made minor changes to this article; it was already in very good shape. It was an interesting read that referenced several good studies that really added to the strength of the article.
Suggestions for the author:
1. Need a clearer explanation on social status section -The second paragraph under this section was hard to understand, so it was hard to make minor writing edits. I think it's a matter of restructuring the sentences to get a point across in a more concise.
2. Some experiments can be condensed -There are a number of experiments described to support some claims/points that are made in this article. But I don't think they need to be described extensively in order to get the point across. For example, specific percentages that are part of the results could probably be omitted.
3. More information needs to be added -Although the section on cooperative breeding is pretty extensive, other information is lacking. It would be nice to have some information on diet, ecology, habitat, etc...and even other types of behavior that the fish exhibits. Jyn0309 ( talk) 20:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 128.252.25.17 ( talk) 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggested changes:
Specific suggested changes:
Bakerb4379 ( talk) 03:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought the Neolamprologus pulcher article was well written overall. But, there is a lot of room to add in more information. I would suggest that the author add information about the organism’s preferred habitat(s), its diet and where it can be found around the world. It could also use a section on what animals typically prey on the Neolamprologus culcher. I would also recommend adding more information about mating and reproduction. The article is also left with a lot of room for the author to add information on things not necessarily pertaining to behavior as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopara ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, y'all. Thanks for all the great suggestions. I have added the following sections: "Taxonomy and Phylogeny," "Distribution and Habitat," and "Description." I have also added a section on Aquarium Care and Setup because the daffodil cichlid is a common fish to own in an aquarium. I have definitely done most of the suggested edits y'all have given on this talk page. Alex G Zhang ( talk) 18:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Under "Physiological Differences":
Under "Liver Investment":
Under "Flexibility in Dominance Hierarchy":
Under "Effect of Hormones":
Overall, this was extremely well-written, and I applaud thee for writing about the same species without much redundancy. This article was organized and easy to follow, and it's only a matter of time before it reaches Good Article status. One last thing though--I'm not sure if it is better to simply state what the studies have shown about the fish without mentioning the study itself, as in "the daffodil cichlid exhibits this behavior," as opposed to "this study examined.. " etc. It is certainly a great thing to have so much information supported by actual findings--I just don't know if it's too detailed to mention all the percentages and such? (I would like a second opinion on this!) Great job. Lucialemon ( talk) 03:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Spending eleven years in the aquatic trade was enlightening; encountering this species regularly, holding specimens in stock every year, we got used to the fact that it has a few common names amongst hobbyists and breeders/traders in the UK.
These names include 'Daffodil', but in the UK this name is almost exclusively applied to a particularly vibrant colour strain, over which there is significant disagreement amongst hobbyists as to which specimens belong to said strain and which do not.
Most commonly, however, the fish is known simply as a 'Fairy Cichlid' or less commonly as a 'Lyretail Cichlid' in the trade and the hobby. The name 'Daffodil' is the least-commonly encountered/used name of the three.
The species is also just as commonly called a 'Brichardi' by traders and enthusiasts, though this is never an advertised name for the species in shops, nor used by the majority of lay hobbyists. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:31CF:B7FD:C84E:BEF7 ( talk) 23:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a VERY comprehensive and well-written article. Here are a few edits I think would be helpful...
Overall, nice job. Very comprehensive article! Ldorn1227 ( talk) 20:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
This article mainly just included a very long Behavior section, and was pretty well established by the time I edited it. However, I did make some edits and changes. Hyperlinks I added: testes, cooperative breeding, parasitism, testosterone, 11-ketotestosterone, androgen, agonistic behavior
In the “Cooperative Breeding” section, I took out the sentence “The presence of helpers is beneficial to breeders” because it didn’t fit well where it was placed, and is addressed multiple times in the next paragraph. Leaving it in would be redundant. I ended up making some minor grammar and wording edits to this section, as well. There were quite a few phrases that were in the passive voice, which I changed to active voice to make it read easier and clearer. The section on “Flexibility in Dominance Hierarchy” needed a bit of grammatical and sentence structure work, and I tried to fix most of this. The author should consider going back and reading through it to fix it up and make sure it reads clearly. In the “Grouping” section, I changed 1-14 to write it out as “one to fourteen.” This reads better and looks more professional.
Overall, I only made minor changes to this article; it was already in very good shape. It was an interesting read that referenced several good studies that really added to the strength of the article.
Suggestions for the author:
1. Need a clearer explanation on social status section -The second paragraph under this section was hard to understand, so it was hard to make minor writing edits. I think it's a matter of restructuring the sentences to get a point across in a more concise.
2. Some experiments can be condensed -There are a number of experiments described to support some claims/points that are made in this article. But I don't think they need to be described extensively in order to get the point across. For example, specific percentages that are part of the results could probably be omitted.
3. More information needs to be added -Although the section on cooperative breeding is pretty extensive, other information is lacking. It would be nice to have some information on diet, ecology, habitat, etc...and even other types of behavior that the fish exhibits. Jyn0309 ( talk) 20:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 128.252.25.17 ( talk) 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggested changes:
Specific suggested changes:
Bakerb4379 ( talk) 03:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought the Neolamprologus pulcher article was well written overall. But, there is a lot of room to add in more information. I would suggest that the author add information about the organism’s preferred habitat(s), its diet and where it can be found around the world. It could also use a section on what animals typically prey on the Neolamprologus culcher. I would also recommend adding more information about mating and reproduction. The article is also left with a lot of room for the author to add information on things not necessarily pertaining to behavior as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopara ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, y'all. Thanks for all the great suggestions. I have added the following sections: "Taxonomy and Phylogeny," "Distribution and Habitat," and "Description." I have also added a section on Aquarium Care and Setup because the daffodil cichlid is a common fish to own in an aquarium. I have definitely done most of the suggested edits y'all have given on this talk page. Alex G Zhang ( talk) 18:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Under "Physiological Differences":
Under "Liver Investment":
Under "Flexibility in Dominance Hierarchy":
Under "Effect of Hormones":
Overall, this was extremely well-written, and I applaud thee for writing about the same species without much redundancy. This article was organized and easy to follow, and it's only a matter of time before it reaches Good Article status. One last thing though--I'm not sure if it is better to simply state what the studies have shown about the fish without mentioning the study itself, as in "the daffodil cichlid exhibits this behavior," as opposed to "this study examined.. " etc. It is certainly a great thing to have so much information supported by actual findings--I just don't know if it's too detailed to mention all the percentages and such? (I would like a second opinion on this!) Great job. Lucialemon ( talk) 03:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Spending eleven years in the aquatic trade was enlightening; encountering this species regularly, holding specimens in stock every year, we got used to the fact that it has a few common names amongst hobbyists and breeders/traders in the UK.
These names include 'Daffodil', but in the UK this name is almost exclusively applied to a particularly vibrant colour strain, over which there is significant disagreement amongst hobbyists as to which specimens belong to said strain and which do not.
Most commonly, however, the fish is known simply as a 'Fairy Cichlid' or less commonly as a 'Lyretail Cichlid' in the trade and the hobby. The name 'Daffodil' is the least-commonly encountered/used name of the three.
The species is also just as commonly called a 'Brichardi' by traders and enthusiasts, though this is never an advertised name for the species in shops, nor used by the majority of lay hobbyists. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:31CF:B7FD:C84E:BEF7 ( talk) 23:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)