Talk:Alligator gar/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to review this article and will be starting my review within the next few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

In general this article is well written and organized.

The caption to the taxobox image needs attention.
The opening sentences of the lead could be a bit more explanatory. Is this a marine or a freshwater fish? Is it a bony or a cartilaginous fish? Where is it found? What is its size? The word "euryhaline" is wikilinked but the reader should not need to click through to understand its significance. The "superorder Holostei" is mentioned but does not appear in the taxobox.
You need to think whether you are going to use the singular or the plural when describing the fish. For example these sentences go from one to the other: "Its common name was derived from its resemblance to the American alligator, particularly its broad snout and long sharp teeth. Their body ... "
The lead section should be a summary of the information in the body of the text. It should not need to contain inline citations because the referencing should be present in the main text. At the moment there are several topics in the lead section that are not mentioned elsewhere.
The sentence about gars being primitive fishes could go in a "Taxonomy and evolution" section.
The present Taxonomy section contains scientific names that should be italicized.
There is a general scarcity of wikilinking.
The Anatomy and physiology section could do with more of a description of the fish, its colouring, shape, fins etc.
The article contains close paraphrasing and copyright infringements. For example, the article states " ... are commonly found in the warm, sluggish backwaters of lowland rivers and lakes, in swamps, reservoirs, brackish waters, bayous and bays in the Southern United States." and the source states " They are commonly found in the warm, sluggish backwaters of lowland rivers and lakes, in swamps, reservoirs, brackish waters, bayous and bays."
The tool "Duplicate detector" is not working at the moment so it is not easy for me to check for generalised copyright issues.

I am going to stop there for the moment. If there are widespread copyright issues with the article they need to be addressed. They may be nothing to do with your involvement with the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can comment here, apologies and please move it to an appropriate place if needed. But:

It should not need to contain inline citations - Please, please, please, even if it does not need it, please keep inline citations in the lead, even if such citations are repeated in the main text below. As a Wikipedia reader, it is quite annoying to have to look down (sometimes very much down) in the middle of text to find the source of a fact in the lead. Inline citations never hurt and are actually recommended to preserve text-source integrity (see WP:CITEFOOT, WP:INTEGRITY).--cyclopia ^speak! 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am advised by others who know much more about GAs and FAs than I do that there should not be inline citations in the lead because it is just a summary of the contents of the main body of text. But it is not a make or break issue whereas copyright infringements are. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would care less of what the GA/FA clique thinks and more about giving precise references to readers.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed this GA review on hold, and will decide whether it passes or fails in seven days time. For the moment I note that some instances of close paraphrasing have been reworded, but resolving the issue involves more than changing a few words around. See this page. The other issues I have already raised have not been addressed and I note that the "Early history" section of "Human utilization" relies heavily on a dead link that needs to be replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, thank you for your attention to this article. I have been following your advice, and tweaking the article where necessary. I just wanted to point out the following regarding the "paraphrasing":

some of the information that was paraphrased either comes directly or indirectly from government sources which is public domain. For example, actual terminology which is now in widespread use originated from research and studies performed by state and federal resource agencies, such as the Missouri Dept. of Conservation, the American Fisheries Society, and various Fish and Wildlife Depts at State Universities that are co-ops with state resource agencies, all of which is public domain. Information such as habitat, physical characteristics, and scientific terminology can only be paraphrased, or directly quoted which is what I've tried to do with inline citations. Four or five matching words in a sentence with inline citations from public domain sources should not be considered a copyright violation, like the names of the states where alligator gars are found, or the types of habitat they prefer, or the law that protects them.
the information derived from one source states the following on its home page: Please feel free to utilize the information we have assimilated, and made available at our website to researchers, students, and educators. Direct quotations with inline citations are encouraged. Our photographs are also available for use under CC BY-SA 3.0 licensing. See [1].
I used the tool you provided a link to, and tweaked the article accordingly. I am now going down your list to fix the other issues you pointed out. Again, thank you for your patience, and collaborative efforts. Atsme☯^Consult 15:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I've completed the list as follows, and tweaked the article further:

The caption to the taxobox image needs attention. ✅
The opening sentences of the lead could be a bit more explanatory. ✅
You need to think whether you are going to use the singular or the plural when describing the fish. ✅
The lead section should be a summary of the information in the body of the text. It should not need to contain inline citations because the referencing should be present in the main text. ☑ (I removed most, but left a couple to reach a happy medium)
The sentence about gars being primitive fishes could go in a "Taxonomy and evolution" section. ✅
The present Taxonomy section contains scientific names that should be italicized. ✅
There is a general scarcity of wikilinking. ✅
The Anatomy and physiology section could do with more of a description of the fish, its colouring, shape, fins etc. ✅
The article contains close paraphrasing and copyright infringements. ✅ This is one of those instances where close paraphrasing in unavoidable. I also double checked Wikipedia:Plagiarism to make sure there were no violations in the article. Fair use applies, as does "free sources" - see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying_material_from_free_sources. When using Duplication Detector, you are going to see the occasional 4 or 5 words that match in some sentences, most of which are lists, or wide spread use of terminology, a formula, a list of locations, and/or descriptions. Even 100 matched words in multiple paraphrased sentences in an article of nearly 3,000 words does not constitute a copyright violation, especially when the information contains inline citations, are public knowledge, and in the public domain such as the information distributed by government resource agencies. Also see close paraphrasing and in-text attribution: Close paraphrasing: Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought. John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read. Regardless, I tweaked the article even further so there would be no question. I hope it will now satisfy the GA requirements, and again thank you for the time you've invested. Your advice and collaboration is much appreciated. Atsme☯^Consult 16:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading

The article is coming along quite nicely now. However I did not read all the way through it in detail before because I got distracted by the close paraphrasing issue. Reading further: -

"When the rivers rise and spread over the floodplain, it creates oxbows and sloughs along the river" - This starts with plural rivers and then moves on to singular.
"The eggs of alligator gars are bright red in color, and they are poisonous to invertebrates, including humans, if ingested." - Humans are not usually considered to be invertebrates. :-)
There is duplication between the Anatomy section and the Taxonomy and evolution section with regard to the swim bladder lung.
"The meat of the alligator gar is white, firm, and quite flavorful." - This sentence is tacked on the end of the history section and is out of place.
"The specimen which has long since been preserved was caught at nearby Beardstown, and measured 8.5 ft (2.6 m) in length." - What does this sentence mean?
It seems to me that the article is arranged in a rather odd way. I would expect to find Distribution much earlier in the article and human uses at the end. Have a look at the way Rainbow trout, an FA, is arranged.

When you have considered the points I've raised above, I will list the GA criteria and we'll see where we're at! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!! I can't believe I missed such a glaring error. Too funny. Will get right on it, and the other things you pointed out. Atsme☯^Consult 02:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I didn't create more errors during the cut & paste rearrange process.

"When the rivers rise and spread over the floodplain, it creates oxbows and sloughs along the river" - This starts with plural rivers and then moves on to singular. ✅ - fixed
"The eggs of alligator gars are bright red in color, and they are poisonous to invertebrates, including humans, if ingested." - Humans are not usually considered to be invertebrates. :-) ✅ - Still scratching my head on that one, but fixed.
There is duplication between the Anatomy section and the Taxonomy and evolution section with regard to the swim bladder lung. ✅ - fixed
"The meat of the alligator gar is white, firm, and quite flavorful." - This sentence is tacked on the end of the history section and is out of place. ✅ - fixed dangling sentence
"The specimen which has long since been preserved was caught at nearby Beardstown, and measured 8.5 ft (2.6 m) in length." - What does this sentence mean? ✅ - good question. Fixed.
It seems to me that the article is arranged in a rather odd way. I would expect to find Distribution much earlier in the article and human uses at the end. Have a look at the way Rainbow trout, an FA, is arranged. ✅ Rearranged.

Atsme☯^Consult 05:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Well-written:

The article looks to comply with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.

(a) the prose is clear and concise, it now respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover the main aspects of the subject.

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) ~~There are instances where the article strays off-topic. Examples are the record fish and the excessively detailed description of the Lacey Act infringement.~~ Probably within the bounds permitted.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article's history shows that it is stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The images used in the article serve a relevant illustrative purpose, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) Images are mostly relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions ~~but they are unnecessarily crowded together, squashing the text, leaving other areas of text unillustrated. I thought the jug fishing video clip was not worth including.~~.

Final assessment - I believe this article now reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]