Talk:Acanthopagrus butcheri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Fishes (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Australia / Biota (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconAcanthopagrus butcheri is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
Good articleAcanthopagrus butcheri has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
October 26, 2007Good article nomineeListed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 16, 2007.

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

A very well written article! I few concerns, however, before I pass the article:

  1. All one-two sentence paragraphs should be either expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs. The exception to this is the "introduction" to "Relationship with humans."  Done
  2. I think that there's a fair amount of overlinking, both per WP:CONTEXT and the fact that the same terms are sometimes re-linked in rapid succession. I realize that, given the subject of the article, some things that normally wouldn't be linked need to be, but I think the linking could stand some trimming. The most egregious example that I could find was "rock" under "Distribution and habitat," but there are more that I'll leave to your discretion to clean up per WP:CONTEXT.  Done - Removed all useless links, but i have kept some links from the intro in the body of text. This is to save readers from scrolling back up once they are down to the biology or fisheries section. Let me know if you would like more of these culled, but i think its ok now.
  3. "These methods have been popularised by a number of fishing journalists and television presenters, including Steve Starling and Kaj Bush who brought attention to luring various species of bream during the mid 1990s on Rex Hunt's Fishing Adventures." (Recreational fishery) requires a citation.  Done Can not remember where i read that, in any case it is very trivial so i have removed those remarks.
  4. Ref #17 is broken. Ref #28 crashed my computer and forced me to retype this entire review, not that I think you can do anything about that though.  Done Ref 17 has proper DOI, Ref 28 crashed because its Victorian... no seriously it works for me, you must have got unlucky (it happens to me occasionally as well).

This review was slightly longer the first time, so I may have missed some clarifying points, although I believe that I hit all my concerns. If something is unclear, please let me know and I will expand further. Anyhow, to allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, if you spot anything else or want me to go further with the changes, just say so. Cheers Kare Kare 08:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, everything looks good now and I will be passing the article! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 14:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review Kare Kare 04:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move[edit]

Casliber(talk) has moved this page from Southern black bream with an edit summary of no common name...breams are a trainwreck! This edit summary is complete BS. Whether or not the breams are a trainwreck, an assertion for which no evidence is offered, this fish most certainly does have a common name, as per the first sentence in the article lead which states:

Acanthopagrus butcheri, officially known as the black bream but also commonly known as the southern black bream, southern bream and blue-nosed bream

Unless suitable justification for the move is given I will take necessary steps to move the article back. - Nick Thorne talk 11:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

O-kay, let's look at the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Article_titles:
1(i) - that's a no, as the official name is "black bream" which is used for a bunch of other species. As much as we would like it to be "southern black bream", this name isn't used much at all (though is a sensible choice). And there's "bluenose bream" and all the names that it shares or swaps with A. australis.
1(ii) - see above, no Spondyliosoma cantharus gets quite a few hits as "black bream" too.
1(iii) - Sort of...unless it's a bluenose bream I guess..but then it's at black bream not southern black bream...?
1(iv) Yes but no but...who knows. The "southern" does differentiate but is not the official name
So A. butcheri has "Black Bream, Silver Bream, Gippsland Bream, Golden Bream, Blue Nose Bream, Southern Black Bream, Southern Bream, Southern Yellowfin Bream" as common names according to iucn, and "Blue Nose Bream, Blue-nose Bream, Blue-nosed Bream, Gippsland Bream, Golden Bream, Perth Bream, Silver Bream, Southern Black Bream, Southern Bream, Yellow-fin Bream" according to fishesofaustralia, while A. australis has "Australian Seabream, Black Bream, Blackbream, Bream, Common Bream, Eastern Black Bream, Sea Bream, Seabream, Silver Bream, Surf Bream, Yellow-fin Bream, Yellow-finned Bream " at fishesofaustralia and "Yellowfin Bream, Eastern Black Bream, Black Bream, Bream, Common Bream, Australian Sea Bream, Sea Bream, Silver Bream, Surf Bream, Australian Seabream" at iucn.

So then in this paper Iwatsuki talks about a black bream and yellowfin bream species complexes with several species...just to confuse things more.
These are the reasons for keeping it at scientific name. and "black bream" as disambiguation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
RL intervenes, might not get back for a few days. Meanwhile, there is no such thing as an "official" common name for fish. - Nick Thorne talk 12:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, it can wait...seems to be a push by Australian agencies for official common names though....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)