# Talk:Stephanolepis cirrhifer

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephanolepis cirrhifer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool article, will review. 

Thx for reviewing! -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
One generally does not use citations in the lead, you should mention the facts in the lead and cite them just in the main text.
I guess you could expand the lead slightly more, it is barely a bit over two lines. How about adding who described it and when, and its ecology?
What is the difference between food and culinary purposes? (not explained in the article)• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


### Taxonomy
Link described.
Fauna seems too common to link
 it was transferred to Stephanolepis by Jordan and Fowler in 1903 It would be better to separate this from the other half the sentence using "however"
The species name cirrhifer is from the Latin meaning "bearing fringes of hair". Looks better like : The species name derives from the Latin cirrhifer, meaning "bearing fringes of hair".
Please write the full names of Jordan and Fowler
 Done -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


### Description and habitat
Link spawning
What is a "slight fin", and is there anything else distinctive about any of the other fins?• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


### Parasites
A part of this is unsourced.
The parasite image looks cluttering, the text looks much misplaced around it. Why not keep just the sushi image?
No need to mention the binomial authority for the parasite (Shiino, 1956)
I think this does not need a separate section, it will look fine under Ecology.
Why describe the parasite's life cycle here?
 Done -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


### Uses
Why link Korea and not Japan?
Can genetic differentiation be linked?
You lay special stress on the fish's popularity in Korea, but you do not mention it at all in the lead.
 Done -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
References: Ref. nos. 3 and 5 do not look very reliable to me.
 Done Fixed. -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That's all I had to say. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Is the article complete enough for GA?• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Pbsouthwood: for all the additional information in the article. Do you have any more comments? @Rcej: Now please organize this information properly in the article. I do not think there are any other issues presently. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Spotted a few more issues :

The last line of uses doesn't start with capital; no source either.
Italics needed in Ecology for the scientific names
The thread-sail filefish is an omnivore, and can feed on plant or animal matter. Does not an omnivore necessarily eat both plants and animals? I guess you need not repeat it.
Just check if you have updated the lead with the new info as required.
Other common names --> Other common names include/are
...broken stripes that range from medium brown to blackish. Juveniles of the species usually seek shelter... There should be a break between the two sentences, the second line marks the start of the ecology part, so make it a new para. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: No more comments? Your views are required before we decide the fate of this article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no issues with the quality of the information, layout, language, references or formatting. I don't have much experience with GA process. The article is short, and by no means exhaustive but what is there seems correct and useful. I have no strong opinion whether it is sufficient, but what exists is OK. by my reading of the criteria. I will go with your judgment. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: Thank you. The article need not be long if it can not be helped, it should cover all that it can in the best manner possible. @Rcej: OK, so I took a final look at the article; the Fishbase citation is still there - it is not reliable. It can be easily omitted as it has not been used anywhere as a sole source for a claim. Please remove it. There are no more issues. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 16:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Very well, this can be promoted now. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The photograph's caption states "prepared as sashimi" which is mistaken.  Sashimi is simply a cut of the fish.  When it is placed on top of vinegared rice (as in the photo) is it properly called "Nigiri," "Sushi," or "Nigiri-zushi."  Calling it sashimi is an error.
,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.181.159 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC) 

Rcej Would you look into this issue? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)