Talk:Cichlid/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• There are at least three dead links.[1]

Taxonomy

• This section needs reworking to avoid the external links in the "details can be found here" comments. External links should only appear in the external links section.

• The last paragraph is rather vaguely attributed.

• The citation style should be consistent throughout the article.

Range and habitat

• "Chakrabarty concludes from his review of phylogenetic analyses that vicariance is the only explanation." Need to explain who Chakrabarty is.

Diet

• The first paragraph, which contains the claim that "Cichlids are astonishingly diverse in terms of diet", needs to be cited. Who is astonished?

Images of cichlids

• I'm unconvinced that this is an article that can justify the inclusion of an image gallery. I'd suggest replacing it with a link to Commons.

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As these issues remain unaddressed, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.