Significantly upgraded since its feature article candidature. Includes compedia of scientific data not available elsewhere on the web outside of the scientific literature. References scientific papers where relevant, so no original research in those sections. Aquaristic sections written by me, and I've written about these fish for fishkeeping magazines and in my aquarium book, so in the slightly odd situation of referencing myself, but there you go! So while I'm happy to see the aquarium parts as being solid, I'd like a marine biologist's or taxonomist's take on the other sections. Any additional facts on things like sport fishing or cooking would be worthwhile, too. Thanks! Neale Neale Monks 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- It looks decent to me. However I have a few, hopefully useful comments:
- The introduction includes several instances of the word "important". What does importance mean in this context? Can that be explained through alternate wording? Similarly in the "Importance" section. Why are they an important link in the food chain? Are there any statistics that could be cited?
- There's a number of instances of a space separating the citation mark from the punctuation (or prior citation). (Examples: ". [1]" and ". [7] [8] [9]") Could the spaces be eliminated? I also see at least one citation before the punctuation: "[5];"
- "...it is this feature [that] provides the family..."
- I'm unclear why the geometric shape cycloid is an alternate term for the texture "smooth". Can that be explained in the text?
- I would like to see a couple of the better images intermixed with the text, rather than being relegated to the bottom sections. Is there a cross-section image of the skeleton for the Morphology section?
- Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have done all of these things (I hope!). "Important" is used only once now. Better terms used elsewhere. "Cycloid" means something specific in fish scales as opposed to maths, so I've added the link to the relevant article. Made a picture to show external morphology, don't have a skeleton of a halfbeak, unfortunately. Would be nice though. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)