So I gave Beanie’s minnow wiki a look over. It started out really strong but potentially lost a bit of steam as I continued to read. To start off with, they used periods inconsistently in the about section and didn’t include pronunciations. I checked through both of the sources that were listed and found that neither said they could reach 4 inches. They mentioned that they require a group of three in the tank minimums area and never addresses it again, especially when it should really be in healthy behavior or compatibility. Additionally, if they did become 4 inches long and were a relatively active carp that needed a group, I wouldn’t recommend them in a 10, though they most likely can be. I just wouldn’t put them in a 10 based on the information provided. Additionally, while some fish can live as low as 50 degrees Fahrenheit, that is a hibernation temperature. If the fish was kept that cold regularly, it would struggle. Their ph range seems to be a bit on the tight side as well but not especially problematic. Their salinity is simply mentioned to be freshwater but the ppm isn’t mentioned. I personally haven’t seen accounts of rosy a single rosy red minnow being sold for 100 dollars which also seems a bit improbable to me. I would love a source displaying that they can be sold at that price. This isn’t something that I’d especially normally say but I got hounded by one of my English teacher so much now I recognize it all the time. The second sentence of the introduction is quite awkward to read and speak. I’d recommend simply changing it to something along the lines of ‘However, they are not only feeder fish. They can be a wonderful and resilient pet to keep and might make a wonderful addition to your community tank. The introduction paragraph also should actually be a paragraph. Trying for 4-5 sentences should be doable. In the appearance section you go a bit into sexual dimorphism. I sometimes put sexual dimorphism in appearance as well but I’m very careful to keep it to a minimum. I wouldn’t have it as half the entire section when you should be going into it in more depth down the line. The information and pictures in this section seems to be decently solid though. In geological range there’s a few Oxford commas. You use and twice while describing the areas where they live when saying “and New Mexico and Mexico”. You also separated this section into two paragraphs which is fine if both sections weren’t only 3 sentences which on their own don’t qualify as paragraphs. You also mention they can deal with a wide range of temperatures and pHs and can live in areas with little to no oxygen flow. I’d recommend listing what those ranges are but unfortunately it doesn’t seem fishbase is equipped to answer that question either which is uncommon. Additionally, cards are known for requiring areas with high oxygen flow so either they do not do well with little to no oxygen or they are and it should be mentioned in common misconceptions. Additionally, saying they can live with low oxygenation is risky as that makes people think they would not require as much aeration in aquaria. They should have a good amount of aeration. Additionally, all cards have this ability to survive in these wide ranges. I wouldn’t exactly call it an evolutionary bonus. Rather, I’d say it helps them survive better. As mentioned previously, you don’t mention their social behavior in healthy behavior even though you brought it up previously. This section is also under three paragraphs so including a section on social behavior would do it some good. In tank set up, you never mention if they need filters or heaters. Whoops, almost typed hilters there lmao. You never mention what kind of flow they need even though you said that they don’t require much aeration previously. You also mention compatibility in this section when it really should be left in compatibility. This species is also known for liking plants in its diet so mentioning if it eats plants might be important. Removing the section about stocking in tank set up only leaves you with 3 sentences again so adding those important factors I mentioned above should help. In tank maintenance, you didn’t mention if this species eats algae which some other carps tend to do so it would be relevant. You could have also mentioned feeding schedules, algae scraping and a number of other things we do in maintenance which would give this section more than three sentences. In hardiness, you separate it into two paragraphs again. There’s also no need for the and separating the second sentence of hardiness as both those two qualities are linked. I would have rewritten it to being ‘As long as this species is in a stable environment, they can tolerate a very wide range of parameters. I also do not see a need for the section starting with “Being so hardy”. Moving onto diet, the first sentence doesn’t really have a purpose. I don’t need to know that they can eat a lot. Humans can eat a lot but that doesn’t especially mean it’s good for them. The only thing you mentioned along what they should eat is a high quality food. Nothing about what this high quality food should have in it. Honestly they could do well off of a smaller goldfish pellet which I would have mentioned. In compatibility, you don’t mention that bit about not living well with aggressive fish like you mentioned in tank set up. I’m not especially sure why this species needs community-like tank rather than just a standard community tank. I’m also not sure what a community-like tank is. The section is separated into paragraphs once again without really being paragraphs. Additionally, you mentioned they wouldn’t live well with snails. I could see them living with a wide range of snails such as mystery snails or nerite snails. They could also probably live well with wood shrimp. In importer vs wild caught, the paragraph once again is only three sentences. I’m not sure what the phrase “and accepted” means exactly. In sexual dimorphism, there’s a run-on sentence. With the run-on fixed, the section will be a full paragraph. I’d remove both reproduction and fry development. The reason I ask for this is because the amino plans to have breeding guides as a separate entity than care guides. This is because you can do a ton of research and still write a care guide but without up close experience with breeding, it can be a bit difficult to write. Even going into the reproduction area, the section is only three sentences. Similar problems exist in fry development. I see you changed my original phrase from negative genetic modification to just genetic modification. There was not a need to go into this as all you mentioned had already been previously mentioned. In invasive, you start off a sentence with because and leave out a comma. The invasive section is also only 3 sentences. In special requirements, if it doesn’t have any, don’t mention it. In common misconceptions, I would add how they’re not good feeders. This is actually something I didn’t know until I got to this amino so sandz could completely correct me on this but here’s the link to a website that supports that they shouldn’t be feeders http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_6/volume_6_1/thiaminase.htm. Whether it’s right or wrong, either answer would qualify as a common misconception. As we get close to the end, I notice that for some reason the sources aren’t centered while the rest of the entire article is. Additionally, you only mentioned two sources when there are a good number you could have also used. There’s no need to limit the amount of sources you are using. I know that strangely I couldn’t find one from seriously fish but there are other good sources. Lastly, there was one major problem that kind of invalidates the article as a whole. Given that fathead Minnows and rosy red minnows are the same species, the care for both of them needs to be addressed. In my betta wiki, I wrote about all tail types of bettas even though they look different. When I eventually write my wiki on goldfish, I’ll be mentioning every type of goldfish there is. Given that the two are the same species, both need to be talked about