Talk:Fish maw

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Nominator: Chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs) 01:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• The main text launches straight into 'Consumption' without saying what fish maw is, so the first chapter is missing. We'd expect (as, say, for Beef tenderloin, to pick an example at random) at least some sort of 'Description', defining what the thing is, some sort of account of terms used and perhaps an etymology. I note that part of this is in 'Production' and should be moved from there.

• Suggest we use "fish maw" as the name of the item throughout, once the synonyms have been introduced in the 'Description' chapter. "Fish sounds" in 'Consumption by region' should become "Fish maws" (multiple instances).

• Please follow logical order is 'Production', then 'Consumption' (people produce a foodstuff, then other people eat it); this is common practice in food articles.

• The 1747 "cookbook" is by Hannah Glasse, who needs to be mentioned here.

• 'Industrial international trade' is an odd phrase. Suggest removing 'Industrial'.

• Trade and production aren't the same thing. Trade should not be subsumed under production. There can be massive production of a foodstuff that is purely local to a country, for example, so that trade in some products is small whereas production is large. Suggest that 'Trade' should be a top-level chapter.

• Differences in swim bladder size within a species are directly proportional to the size variation within the species, so the largest specimens caught are the most valuable. - 1) this is poorly expressed, and the final clause is a non sequitur (folks might like to eat small delicate ones, after all). I think that all that is needed here is to say that swim bladder size is proportional to fish size; and that the larger ones are more valuable.

• 'Wildlife trade' has a non-neutral ring, reinforced by comments on bycatch, minimal governmental oversight, dead fish dumping, eutrophication, and official controls. In other words, the section, ostensibly about trade regions and volumes, carries the half-stated message that fish maw trade and perhaps consumption are environmentally harmful. Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral, and must state the facts clearly. We need to separate out a plain (neutral) description of trade (so many tons were shipped from A to B with value $N in year Y) from a plain, fully-cited, account of environmental or conservation impact (in a separate chapter). I suggest we have a structure something like:

Environmental impact

Damage to fish stocks

Collateral damage (Vaquita, via use of gillnets)

Lake eutrophication

• Another aspect that requires reorganisation of its own chapter is 'Crime'. I suggest that we group this under the following headings:

Crime

Counterfeiting

Poaching (with some of the totoaba material: but is this the only instance?)

Smuggling (incorporating some of the 'Totoaba' material)

• The very long list of 'Source fish' should be in a subsidiary article, List of fish used for fish maw, as it unbalances the article and reduces readability.

• It isn't clear why Other targeted fishes are not in the list. The first column can simply be left blank for family entries. I note that "lates perch" is the Latidae which are already represented in the list, so it would actually make more sense to put the 'Family' column on the left, give it a brief mention in the 'Common name' column, and to note that the named species are just examples within the family. You could rename the 'Common name' column to 'Common name/comments' if that feels more comfortable to accommodate this.

• Why does the croaking mechanism affect the price of croaker fish maw?

Images

• All images are on Commons, relevant, and plausibly licensed.

• Hong Kong, Nile perch, and totoaba images need the |upright parameter.

• Images should be placed after any 'further' or 'main' links.

• The Fried fish maw image should be in 'Consumption' not 'Production'.

Sources

• Earwig finds no copyvio issues.

• We can't use a primary source like Glasse 1747 to say which cuisines the food was used in during the 18th century; that requires a secondary source which says the book was popular in America, etc.

• Spot-checks:
  • [1] ok
  • [3] is page 158 not 138. I hope other page numbers are correct.
  • [12] Please supply either page number or quotation to support this.
  • [11] ok
  • [21] ok
  • [30] ok
  • [31] SEMARNAT not verified. Not sure why we're emphasising Sea of Shadows, as it was just one of multiple sources: focus should be the poaching and its effects here.

Summary

This article is a welcome addition to Wikipedia's coverage of foods and fisheries. However, it has several structural issues which need to be addressed before it can progress to GA. These should be reasonably straightforward to fix.

I may need to carry out a second pass of this review after the rework has been completed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Chickenpox4dinner - I see you're doing some editing elsewhere, so while no hurry, I'd be glad to know your rough timescale for sorting this one out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap Sorry for the delay, I was trying to clear my plate before giving my full attention to this review. Thank you so much for taking on this review, I greatly appreciate your expertise - I agree with pretty much all of your points. I think this article suffered from being a draft for too long, so I am ready and willing to work it back into shape. I expect to have it ready for your next pass before the end of the month, maybe EOD Monday if I hit my stride. Thanks again! chickenpox4dinner (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I was wrong -- I will have the draft to you more like Thursday or Friday, New Years is far busier for me than I expected. Thank you again for your notes. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Enjoy the holiday! Looking forward to seeing the updates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for your patience, I have just finalized my updates. I believe I addressed all of your points. Looking forward to your next review! chickenpox4dinner (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2026 (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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by HurricaneZeta (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 'Dragon Cartel' – a cooperation of Chinese triads and Mexican cartels – poach fish maw on the Gulf of California and smuggle it to China?

• Source: Cuéllar, Alejandra (May 10, 2021). "The "Dragon Cartel" is beating Mexico's government on totoaba trafficking". Dialogue Earth.

• • ALT1: ... that totoaba fish maw can sell for upwards of US$60,000 per kilogram on Chinese markets? Source: Cuéllar, Alejandra (May 10, 2021). "The "Dragon Cartel" is beating Mexico's government on totoaba trafficking". Dialogue Earth.
  • ALT2: ... that fish maw fishing has caused fish stock collapse in Mexico, China and Lake Victoria? Source: Chandler, Jo (October 10, 2024). "'Cocaine of the seas' — how a luxury food is wreaking ecological mayhem". Nature. 634 (8033): 284–286. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03259-8. ISSN 0028-0836
  • ALT3: ... that fish maw has been replacing shark's fin as a luxury seafood in China? Source: Hui, Lulu Ning; Reed, Sarita (2022-01-20), 'Gold in the sea': Brazil's booming fish bladder trade, Al Jazeera
  • Reviewed: [[]]

Improved to Good Article status by Chickenpox4dinner (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

chickenpox4dinner (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC).

• Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hooks are interesting and sourced. QPQ is not needed. Looks ready to go. Congratulations on this excellent article! Thriley (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

Fish maw

I am looking to shape this article up for WP:FAC review. The article recently passed GA review, but I am looking to see what areas need to be expanded upon or fixed up to bring the article to a state it can be a good FA nomination.

Please don't hesitate to reach out! Yours, chickenpox4dinner (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

What strikes me first is that there's lots of short sections. WP:FACR requires a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings. Sections with just a single paragraph (or even worse, a single sentence, as in "Cultured meat") generally meet with disapproval at FAC. I'd start by rearranging things to combine some of the shorter sub-sections. This is a short article (just over 2000 words), so breaking it up into lots of L3 and L4 sections is distracting. Ping me when you've got that done and I'll come back and take another look. RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chickenpox4dinner I just want to make sure you saw my comments. RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith Thank you for the ping, I had seen your message but it's been an odd week for me -- been getting back in the saddle today! I will work to merge sections and also see what I can do as far as other WP:FACR requirements, and ping you when that's complete. Thanks again, chickenpox4dinner (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chickenpox4dinner it's been a couple of weeks. Might I suggest closing this PR, working on the article as your schedule permits, and then opening a new PR when you can devote more time to it? RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith Thank you for keeping on top of this despite my lack of commitment. I am taking your advice and closing this PR, and will work to shape up per WP:FACR before pursuing a future PR, when I'm ready for it. Thanks again, chickenpox4dinner (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)