A scientist critique is preserved and routed toward Wiki review rather than flattened into forum argument.
I don’t think the fisheries trend summary is wrong, but it may overstate what a global capture plateau means unless marine capture, inland capture, and reporting changes are separated.
This is a good candidate for Wiki review because it is about wording, source interpretation, and aggregation. The Public Square can preserve the concern, but the revision should happen elsewhere.
Steward note: routed as a source/method concern. This thread remains visible as public interpretation, but any DS article change should be reviewed in the Wiki layer.
This is exactly the kind of expert correction path that makes me trust the public side more. It does not silence the concern, but it also does not let the forum rewrite the entry casually.
Suggested Wiki-review phrasing: I question whether the current fish-catch narrative sufficiently separates marine capture, inland capture, and reporting changes. Could the source treatment and aggregation language be reviewed?
This is where the separation between Public Square and Wiki is most visible. A lay reader can understand the concern, but the actual change path remains expert-facing.
Steward note: an escalation record is attached to this topic. The Public Square preserves the question; Wiki review handles source and wording changes.
