This article is about one of the most colorful fish in the Atlantic. As a popular ornamental it would make a nice addition to FA. Have at it.
LittleJerry (
talk)
16:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Image review
Image licensing looks ok
File:QueenAngelfish distribution.png What is the source of the info?
Some of the claims made are cited to sources that are relatively old - for example, regarding the retail price for the fish. Are there no newer sources available?
Google scholar and google books. I looked though several books which ended up repeating much the same information. I think the article has a good balance of old and new sources.
LittleJerry (
talk)
15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Formatting of FN2 is not consistent with other refs
LittleJerry, "Passing" a source review is distinct from supporting a FAC.
Nikkimaria, if you're unable or unwilling to finish this review I can ask someone else to take over. (
t ·
c) buidhe05:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't have any further comments on the review. I don't agree on the first point but leave it open for other reviewers to decide for themselves.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Buidhe, obviously, is correct. Re Nikkimaria's point, I agree. I flagged up the same point in my review. Taking in good faith that there are no more recent sources for this I narrowly decided that I could support anyway. Probably not the easiest decision for the closing coordinator, but I think my position is clear.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
@
LittleJerry: Okay, but mixing both dmy and mdy is not allowed. For example, one ref has the date "19 November 2021" and another ref has the access date "February 22, 2021" - they have to be consistent. There is even a "use dmy"-template at the top of the article.
As a follow-up of the source review, I get 93 results when searching "Queen angelfish" on
the Wikipedia library and sorting by "Peer-reviewed". Something to consider?
It is not me that will be looking at the map, it is the
WP:READER, to whom you have dedicated your Wiki-service. At at least one point the orange almost meets itself.
The lead is pretty definitive that the QA breeds during the full moon. But under #Life cycle, this has been reduced to "sometime..." (also, should that be "sometimes?)
"as the proportion of prey in their diet does not match that of the benthic community they inhabit." This doesn't seem to make sense. Or I am being slow - entirely possible. Could you paraphrase what you are trying to communicate for my benefit? Thanks.
"highly selective feeders". Highly? The source definitely says this? 30 different prey species would seem to argue differently. Not to mention the omnivorous "Queen angelfish feed on sponges, tunicates, jellyfish, corals, plankton and algae".
Umderstood. It is the "highly" I am questioning. Is it solidly supported in a consensus of sources? If not (and possibly even if so) it may be best to drop the word as a little peacocky.
I was giving this a read-through for potential promotion and decided I probably have enough questions I need to recuse.
"The retail price for the species may range from US$60 to $130" - the source here is fairly old for pricing information. If there's nothing newer that can be provided, I would recommend removing the pricing information entirely.
"The queen angelfish is the most frequently exported angelfish species from Brazil." - I understand that this may not be something commonly discussed in the literature, but I just want to double-check that this is the most recent figure
"In 2015, an aquarium-introduced angelfish was caught in the Red Sea at Eilat's Coral Beach, Israel. The disease-causing bacterium Photobacterium damselae piscicida, which was not previously documented in Red Sea fish, was isolated from its kidney, raising concerns that it could infect native fish" - has anything come of this?
No objections to promotion - I didn't read the article close enough to give a support declaration, but my questions have all been answered satisfactorily.
Hog FarmTalk20:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
This article is about one of the most colorful fish in the Atlantic. As a popular ornamental it would make a nice addition to FA. Have at it.
LittleJerry (
talk)
16:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Image review
Image licensing looks ok
File:QueenAngelfish distribution.png What is the source of the info?
Some of the claims made are cited to sources that are relatively old - for example, regarding the retail price for the fish. Are there no newer sources available?
Google scholar and google books. I looked though several books which ended up repeating much the same information. I think the article has a good balance of old and new sources.
LittleJerry (
talk)
15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Formatting of FN2 is not consistent with other refs
LittleJerry, "Passing" a source review is distinct from supporting a FAC.
Nikkimaria, if you're unable or unwilling to finish this review I can ask someone else to take over. (
t ·
c) buidhe05:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't have any further comments on the review. I don't agree on the first point but leave it open for other reviewers to decide for themselves.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Buidhe, obviously, is correct. Re Nikkimaria's point, I agree. I flagged up the same point in my review. Taking in good faith that there are no more recent sources for this I narrowly decided that I could support anyway. Probably not the easiest decision for the closing coordinator, but I think my position is clear.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
@
LittleJerry: Okay, but mixing both dmy and mdy is not allowed. For example, one ref has the date "19 November 2021" and another ref has the access date "February 22, 2021" - they have to be consistent. There is even a "use dmy"-template at the top of the article.
As a follow-up of the source review, I get 93 results when searching "Queen angelfish" on
the Wikipedia library and sorting by "Peer-reviewed". Something to consider?
It is not me that will be looking at the map, it is the
WP:READER, to whom you have dedicated your Wiki-service. At at least one point the orange almost meets itself.
The lead is pretty definitive that the QA breeds during the full moon. But under #Life cycle, this has been reduced to "sometime..." (also, should that be "sometimes?)
"as the proportion of prey in their diet does not match that of the benthic community they inhabit." This doesn't seem to make sense. Or I am being slow - entirely possible. Could you paraphrase what you are trying to communicate for my benefit? Thanks.
"highly selective feeders". Highly? The source definitely says this? 30 different prey species would seem to argue differently. Not to mention the omnivorous "Queen angelfish feed on sponges, tunicates, jellyfish, corals, plankton and algae".
Umderstood. It is the "highly" I am questioning. Is it solidly supported in a consensus of sources? If not (and possibly even if so) it may be best to drop the word as a little peacocky.
I was giving this a read-through for potential promotion and decided I probably have enough questions I need to recuse.
"The retail price for the species may range from US$60 to $130" - the source here is fairly old for pricing information. If there's nothing newer that can be provided, I would recommend removing the pricing information entirely.
"The queen angelfish is the most frequently exported angelfish species from Brazil." - I understand that this may not be something commonly discussed in the literature, but I just want to double-check that this is the most recent figure
"In 2015, an aquarium-introduced angelfish was caught in the Red Sea at Eilat's Coral Beach, Israel. The disease-causing bacterium Photobacterium damselae piscicida, which was not previously documented in Red Sea fish, was isolated from its kidney, raising concerns that it could infect native fish" - has anything come of this?
No objections to promotion - I didn't read the article close enough to give a support declaration, but my questions have all been answered satisfactorily.
Hog FarmTalk20:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply