Talk:Arapaima gigas
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Material from Arapaima was split to Arapaima gigas on 17 November 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Arapaima. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 4 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tracha3. Peer reviewers: Emigracew, Tamayadixon.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arapaima gigas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627000000/http://www.iucnredlist.org to http://www.iucnredlist.org
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
::Peer ReviewTamayadixon (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC) edit
I like that the very beginning stated clearly what the species was and what is needed for it to survive. The very first sentence of the ecology section could be stated a bit clearer and some words that aren’t needed could be taken out. I think making sure all sentences are clear and add any information that is would also be valuable in the article. The sections are organized in great order because they go from basic information to specific details about the species. The information being added will work great for getting into the detail of ecology. There was nothing off-topic for the sections. I think they all had great importance and the length of each one did seem fair with the amount of information given. All the information was factual and there was no sense of opinion or bias. There was no convicting of one view or another for the species. I didn’t come across any words or phrases that didn’t seem neutral. A lot of the sources provided seem to be from other website articles, blogs, or self-published authors. Article 2 looks to be used in almost every section but the others were used at least once and distributed evenly throughout the article. It looks that the article is heavily sourced from top to bottom.