# Talk:Pseudoambassis macleayi

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ambassis macleayi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You've done some great work on expanding this article, but I think it's still a little short of what we would typically be looking for in a GA about a fish species. Take a look at some of the articles on Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Fish for examples; the various shark and ray articles are very good as guides.
Some general comments going forward:

You really need a taxonomy section, providing details of first description, important synonyms, taxonomic relationships, etc. This is typically where common names can go.
As someone else has indicated, the lead section doesn't really do a great job of summarising the article.
Think a little about the order of sections. WP:FISH may have some advice, but I'd just try to mirror existing good/featured articles.
You could probably have a little more detail on the range; and "trans-Fly region" doesn't really mean a lot to me!
Similarly, perhaps the description section could be a little more accessible to non-specialists.
The naming section is apparently unsourced.
It's not the end of the world if you lean strongly on one source, but incorporating a few others can help!
There's currently very little information about ecology. What does this fish eat? And I would guess that it is a prey species for plenty of other animals?
I'm happy to leave the GAC open for now; I don't think it'll take much to get this to where it needs to be, but I'm also happy to close it if you'd prefer. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll attend to it over the next few days, to see if I can bring the article up to standard.  I have some health issues IRL that limit the amount of time that I can spend on this, but I really appreciate your assistance. - Nick Thorne talk 11:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
No hurry at all. Let me know when you're ready for me to take another look or if there's anything I can help with. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll get stuck into it and do some heavy lifting. I really wanna catch some local ones of these for my fish tanks...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I wonder if you could give it the once over again and let me know how you think the article is progressing. - Nick Thorne talk 12:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; I'll give it a proper look through soon! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
A few comments:

The lead's a little short; two short paragraphs would probably better reflect the article length.
"Allan Riverstone McCulloch placed it in the genus Ambassis in 1929. Gilbert Percy Whitley made it the type species of the genus Austrochanda, calling it Austrochanda macleayi in 1835." Apparently unsourced, and you should presumably note that the change didn't stick!
The common names in the lead don't seem to match the common names in the taxonomy section!
I'd say that the description section is still a little technical, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it! Same is true of the breeding/lifecycle section.
What are "escarpment main channel water bodies"?
"microcrustacivores" is a word that gets only three hits (one is this article) on google!
Is Aquagreen a reliable source? It doesn't look like one!
This is pushing towards where it needs to be; great work so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks for your patience here, Josh. I have addressed most of the items in your two lists.  The Aquagreen site is a bit non RS, but their info is sourced back to ANGFA who are an RS.  I am waiting for my membership to be processed so that I can access the "Fishes of Sahul" archive and other reference material published by them.  I'm working on increasing the lead, I'll get to that soon. - Nick Thorne talk 06:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
On Aquagreen/ANGFA: Is there some way to "cut out the middle man"? Or is that what you're waiting on archive access for? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that is exactly what I want the archive access for, plus it will be useful for other Aussie freshwater fish articles. - Nick Thorne talk 11:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I now have access to the ANGFA data and have replaced the reference regarding physio-chemical proprties.  I have left the ref to Aquagreen regarding numbers of fish recommended and changed the wording by inserting "reportedly", do you think that would allow us to use the reference for this purpose now? - Nick Thorne talk 01:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry at all, so I'm happy to wait on the access. In the mean time, are there other things we're waiting on? Looking again... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead feels a little short; I'm surprised there's no mention of home aquaria.
You repeat claims about the depth.
"non-threatened by the IUCN Redlist" Why not say "least concern"? "Non-threatened" could include several classifications!
The article does still feel a little under-developed; the sections are very short. Do keep your eyes open for any further information! For example, I'd be interested to hear more about predators/parasites, more about the kinds of plants they live on/among, and more about near relatives, for example. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Casliber and Nick Thorne: Just a quick reminder about this one. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, RL has been getting in the way a bit lately. - Nick Thorne talk 11:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't rush on my behalf; there's no reason GAC should work on a time limit. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@J Milburn, Casliber,  and Nick Thorne: While there is no time limit I just want to make sure this has not been forgotten about. It is three months since the review started and over a month since the last comment here. Do you need any help progressing the review? AIRcorn (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I will take another look soon, this should be doable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Drive-by Comment your range map File:Distribution map for Ambassis macleayi.jpg needs a source (just to make sure it's accurate)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. - Nick Thorne talk 01:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Thorne and Casliber: Are you feeling this article is "ready"? My feeling from a quick glance is that it's still a little under-developed. My guess is that this review has probably been open long enough. Perhaps we could close the review and it could be renominated if/when it gets that last little push? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Josh, I think that is fair enough. I haven't had as much time as I would have liked plus finding suitable sources has proven to be on the hard side.  I'll keep plugging away as I find appropriate material and will renominate when I think it's ready.  Thank you very much for your input. - Nick Thorne talk 09:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Josh, if you could strike through issues that you feel have been addressed that'd be helpful. I had forgotten about this so am just trying to figure out what needs doing. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
As a Brit without an aquarium I could guess but am not sure the meaning of "community tanks" in the lead.
Chidgk1 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


### Status query
This review has been open for seven months. Josh Milburn, Nick Thorne, Cas Liber, where does this stand? If there isn't anything new posted here by the end of the year, the thing to do may be to close it as suggested by Nick above, but given the current backlog, if this could be finished off in the short term, that might be the best course. If Josh isn't interested in pursuing it further, I could try to find a new reviewer. Thanks to you all. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me to close it for now.  I don't have access to much of my normal reference material ATM due to RL issues, but I'll keep chipping away at the article as time and resources allow.  We can re-nominate it at a later time, there's no deadline after all. - Nick Thorne talk 23:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC).


### Sorry for the delay...
Apologies for my silence on this.

Looking at the lead: "deep-bodied" and (as mentioned above) "community tanks" come across as jargon.  Done
"recumbent spine" is also jargon  Done added explanation
Could we have the full names of Paxton, Hoese, Allen, and Hanley?  Done added initials
"high gill raker count, interrupted lateral line" Jargon? Done wikilinked terms
The lead image doesn't match the image on the source page?
For GA purposes, the referencing looks fine. This is looking a lot better than I remember it! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

this looks doable. Will get onto it between relatives today....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I have attended to most of these items, with explanations as appropriate.  If these are not satisfactory please let me know. I'm looking at the image issue. - Nick Thorne talk 02:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@J Milburn:, sorry Josh, which reference are you referring to, this image matches most images online for this species, it could just be the lighting in the picture, if you're talking about the one on Fishbase. - Nick Thorne talk 02:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, concerning the image: I'm not challenging the identity of the fish, I'm wondering about the provenance of the image. The image that was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is not the image on the source page, so it's not clear where the image uploaded to Commons comes from. This creates a licensing/sourcing issue. Again: I may be missing something obvious! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Butting in, a more direct link to the image here[1] But I do see the photo on the lower right of the current link? Speaking of images, the article seems a bit bare, how about adding this[2] photo that shows a slightly different angle? FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I've added the second photo to the description section. - Nick Thorne talk 10:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'm happy. I'm going to go ahead and promote. Great working with you all. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, in this edit, you converted the units of length from mm to cm.  Under the metric system (at least in Australia) it is standard to use mm, rather than cm for length and the literature regarding fish has always to my knowledge used mm.  Would you mind if I was to change back to mm, the metric part of the conversions you kindly put in? - Nick Thorne talk 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of mm being official, that's fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

With this edit 7&6=thirteen added wikilinks within the references of the article.  These changes do not alter in any way what is presented to the reader, indeed some of them would be red links if they were.  I have reverted the change. - Nick Thorne talk 23:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Nick Thorne It's done all the time. It helps readers.  You even acknowledge that most of them were blue links.  At a minimum, they would do no harm.  You seem to have thrown out the baby with the bath.  But you do what you want.  WP:Own might apply.  Cheers.  Happy New Year.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
But none of the links are visible to the reader. OWN has nothing to do with it. - Nick Thorne talk 10:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The links are visible to me as they are part of the references.  when the references are visible, the links are revealed.  I edit from a computer.  I don't understand your statement that "none of the links are visible to the reader."  Unless you mean on your cellphone, maybe?
I've restored the blue links only.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I can see the links now.  I am editing on a PC, I don't know why the links did not show up before. Sorry about that. - Nick Thorne talk 20:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)