Talk:Queen angelfish

Queen angelfish is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 11, 2022.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 2, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
March 5, 2022	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Fishes Mid‑importance

	Fish portal This 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.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aquarium Fishes High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Aquarium Fish articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Aquarium FishesWikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium FishesTemplate:WikiProject Aquarium FishesAquarium Fishes articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marine life (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Requested move

Queen Angelfish → Queen angelfish — Changing name to conform to WikiProject Fishes naming standards. In most cases, we should not capitalize common names. [[User:sbidny|Steven Bidny]] (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a guideline of WP:FISH, it is more common, and related articles use this capitalisation, and an request may be unnecessary. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is unambiguous. I'll move it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed per the above move request --Stemonitis (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of juvenile appreciated

Since the juvenile and adult forms of this species are so different, a photo of the former (as a secondary photo) could be useful to most readers.

Range map

Requesting someone make a distribution map of the species using this. Much appreciated. LittleJerry (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Queen angelfish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that, aside from Brazil, the species is not harvested too much in its range and the wild population appears to be stable.[1] – Sentence without noun, maybe needs to be combined with previous one.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bacteria Photobacterium damselae piscicida was isolated from its kidney, raising concerns that it could infect native fish.[25] – Does this mean that this bacterium (singular? bacteria is plural?) is specific for this fish, or that it is exclusively found in the western Atlantic? And, it would be ideal to have a paragraph on parasites?

Just that they could spread the disease. And the sources don't mention parasites LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to add that the disease was previously found to be absent in native fish in the Red Sea. This would highlight the importance of this discovery, and add necessary context. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence stating if species-appropriate husbandry is even possible for pomacanthids of this size (I have read it is not).

The sources don't say. Just that they have certain requirements. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are captured mostly for the aquarium trade, where they are abundant and highly valued – Isn't "abundant" a bit too much? They reach 45 cm and don't even fit into most private aquaria?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice read, only few issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]