Wikipedia:Peer review/Goldfish/archive1

Goldfish

Besides more citations and less weasel words, what can I do to make this article better? QuizQuick 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language is a little informal; it reads like a how-to guide on keeping goldfish. "Goldfish make great pond-fish." "Goldfish need only be fed as much food as they can consume in three to four minutes, and no more than twice a day." "It is a better idea to introduce blanched greens to the tank than it is to use live plants as a food source." "Terms like "dropsy" and "swim bladder disease" are thrown around carelessly, with little consideration for the cause." etc. The external links section need formatting and perhaps shrinking. Otherwise, it's pretty good, and really comprehensive. --Iorek85 09:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good in terms of factual content (though as you have recognised, more citations would be helpful), but the article would benefit from heavy copyediting. A few suggestions:

References should be in the m:Cite format. Currently there is a mix of formats.
Some of the external links look rather spammy ("amazing goldfish training"?). See WP:EL for guidance on what type of links are suitable.
There is quite a bit of redundancy in the prose, e.g. "While it is true that goldfish can survive in a fairly wide temperature range" could be written as "Goldfish can survive in a fairly wide temperature range" without changing the meaning. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a is useful advice for improving readability, including avoiding redundancy.
I agree with lorek85 that several parts read like a how-to. These parts should be rewritten in a more encycopedic tone. Looking at some of the featured articles about animals, such as Cat or Frog may help in showing how this can be done.
Where possible, try to convert bulleted lists into prose.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 17:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 23:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Can you give me a letter grade for FA articles? Like B+? A? Etc. QuizQuick 02:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I would say it's C+, mostly because there seem to be a lot of statements unsupported by any sources. With sources, it would probably be a B+. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider putting the online references in inline format, e.g. <ref>{{cite web | url=... | title=... | accessdate=2006-07-14}}</ref>. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]