Talk:Common minnow

Peer Edits[edit]

Suggested edits:

You should add hyperlinks to some of the words under the characteristics and behavior sections. for example: spawning, tubercles
You say the phrase 'shoaling behavior' too much in your paragraph on shoaling behavior. It sounds like you are writing a list of facts rather than a well-flowing article. Consider replacing some of these instances with "this behavior" or "shoaling" instead of "shoaling behavior".
Your grammar throughout the whole thing is a little weird. You've left out a lot of articles (for example, a / the). Consider going through your article again and revising this as necessary.
In the section 'shoaling as a response to predation risk', you use the term 'common minnows' a lot, enough that it weighs down the language of the article and ends up not making sense. I'm confused, for example, as to whether the common minnow or the eurasian minnow react to the signal by positioning themselves closer to the center of the group. Consider rephrasing this.
You should add a citation in the first few sentences of the 'predator inspection' section, maybe between the second and third sentences.
In 'variations in anti-predator activities', instead of its current wording, the last bit of the second sentence should read, "and they approach the predator less." The current wording is confusing and convoluted.
Use present tense, even when you are talking about experiments done in the past.
In the 'Breeding in captivity' section, you should find references for this section even though you may not have written it. This will ensure that you reach Good Article status.

Overall, nice job on this article. Ldorn1227 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Edits II[edit]

I focused specifically on the Behavior section of this article. Hyperlinks I added: Shoaling, olfactory, altruistic, alertness, northern pike

From the section “Alarm substance”: “The production and release of this alarm substance are altruistic because the sender of the signal, who does not directly benefit from the signal released upon its injury has to pay the cost for the production and release of the chemical” I found this sentence to be extremely confusing so I tried to fix it up. The author should go back and try to further clarify it, though. I also made quite a few wording edits to this section.

I added in spaces between the paragraphs, which were absent before. This should make everything in the article look a little cleaner. The section on Predator inspection was very good and thorough. I just made some sentence structure and wording changes. The author may want to consider clearing up the second paragraph about the minnows’ interactions with the Northern Pike.

Overall, this was very well written and pretty thorough. I made minor wording changes but did not do anything major. My suggestions for the author are below.

Suggestions for the author:

In the Shoaling section, clarify what you mean by “increased risk of infection.” Are there specific diseases or parasites that affect this minnow?
Clarify where you talk about how “naïve common minnows”
The shoaling section was very broad and could probably be expanded upon to be more specific to minnows. Right now, it seems like it is just talking about fish in general.
In the section, “Shoaling adjustment in response to predation risk”, talk about why those individuals in the central group are in the best position.
Expand on the Foraging section, perhaps talk about their diet and how that relates to shoaling behavior being beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgolds1203 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rgolds1203 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Edits[edit]

Under "Shoaling":

Made a few grammatical changes, and made minor changes to sentences for better flow and to make it more concise

Under "Predator avoidance":

Made minor changes
Deleted hyperlink to Hamilton - not specific
Included Hamilton's first name's initials

Under "Alarm substance":

This is very interesting! Perhaps include more information about the physiological basis of it?

Under "Foraging":

Perhaps more information could be included here

Under "Individual recognition and shoal choice":

Either change the title, or include more about individual recognition. I would like to see what physiologically happens for the fish with association patterns.

Overall, the article was detailed and thorough, and was well-organized with a good use of subheadings. Certain areas could still flow better, but in general it was still easy to follow. Great work! Lucialemon (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

recommended edits[edit]

Great job!! To raise to a Good article status, I recommend:

Separate "Characteristic" section to "Description" and "Distribution and habitat" sections. For "Distribution and habitat" section, it will be better if you can add a map showing distribution.
Add "Taxonomy" section. Compare and contrast to related fishes.
Add more contents to the "Behavior" section, something other than predator-prey relationship.

Hami910311 (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.110.213 (talk) [reply]