While others and I may agree with your opinion that "Tetrapod-like features in fish are remarkable", our opinions are ultimately irrelevant. Unsourced promotion of opinions, as well as the original synthesis (novel interpretation) of published material, violates Wikipedia's policies of neutrality, due-weight, and no original research. Unless the entire list or at least the tetrapod-like traits are reliably sourced (e.g. "Smith (2001) lists these 11 traits as key tetrapod characteristics") the appearance is that you alone are advancing the view that all of these species and/or their traits are remarkable for their supposed tetrapod-like nature; assertions which may never have been explicitly made in reliable sources, and thus the list appears to be original synthesis.  The facts themselves are certainly appropriate in each species' article, but combining them in a novel fashion to reach a conclusion(?) unsupported by sources is synthesis.  If you're concerned that interesting behavior or anatomy is not being highlighted, you might expand coverage in relevant sections of Fish locomotion or Diversity of fish. It's fine to say something like "the Zob fish ventures onto land", or even "The Zob fish is a classic, textbook example of a tetrapod-like fish (Smith, 1980),"  but it would be synthesis and non-neutral to say (or imply) "The Zob fish interestingly resembles tetrapods because it ventures onto land" without any citation.