Talk:American paddlefish/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll review this. A few preliminary points below. FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The intro does not need citations for non-controversial claims, since there should be no unique info in the intro, all the sources for the same info can be found in the article body.
- Hi, User:FunkMonk, and thank you for being so generous of your time, and for reviewing this article. I will remove the citations from the lead today
There seem to be some good,unused images here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Polyodon_spathula
The image layout of the article could probably use some work. Why a painting and not a photo in the infobox, for example?
- I agree, and will see what I can do to improve it.
You should have a taxonomy section.
- Is the taxobox not sufficient? If not, do you think a chart showing a taxonomic hierarchy will be an improvement?
- Atsme☯^Consult 18:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, taxonomy sections go into the discovery and naming of the taxon in question, the history of its classification (can vary wildly through time, with various synonyms), and its interrelationships with relatives (cladograms are nice, if available). For good examples of this in fish articles, check out Yxz's GAs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yzx It may be a good idea to give this article a similar structure, if possible, a section for diet, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I employed your suggestions, and thank you. I've been modeling after the Alligator gar article (which I recently edited to GA status), and also nominated for a July DYK (and rcvd 14,312 hits during the 12 hrs. it was featured). Also wanted to thank you for referencing Yxz's GAs - very well done!! Atsme☯^Consult 22:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! I'll add more comments as I read along.In the meantime, this isn't employed much, I guess because people don't know about it, but you can select specific thumbnails for embedded videos. In case you want to show something else than the default. The parameters can be found here:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great tip, thank you. Big improvement. I have some thumb timing to do on other articles. Atsme☯^Consult 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"not because they have not evolved, rather the term refers to the morphological characters they retained from their earliest ancestors whose fossil record dates from the Late Cretaceous, seventy to seventy-five million years ago." Primitive does not mean "not evolved" by any definition, I would scratch that part. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to split the description/anatomy and behaviour/physiology into different sections (as in most other articles), now it is a bit messy.
"Life cycle" Would then be a subsection under behaviour.
There is some redundancy in that section, which will probably be solved by a split as well.
"Culture", I would rather call such a section "relationship with humans" or some such, is more inclusive.
"but only in the genus Polyodon (P. spathula and the extinct P. tuberculata)" Before that, you write the genus only contains one species. Since the extinct species doesn't have an article, could their relationship be clarified here?
I think bullet point lists in article sections is not preferred, not sure where I read that though... FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The photo period" What is that?
"Paddlefish fry grow rapidly" What is that?
"The largest paddlefish on record was captured in Lake Okoboji, Iowa in 1916 by a spear fisherman, and measured 85 in (2.2 m) long, and weighed an estimated 198 lb (90 kg).[15]" Doesn't this make more sense under anatomy?
The image under taxonomy is rather small and blurry. Perhaps the former taxobox painting[2] can be used there?
The sport fishing section would make more sense as a subsection under culture/human relations.
The Population decline section should also cover IUCN categorisation and conservation efforts.

FunkMonk, it looks like you've been one busy reviewer. Thank you for all you do. Following are my responses to your suggestions....

not because they have not evolved.... - Gone. ✅

split the description/anatomy and behaviour/physiology into different sections - I added Description. ✅

"Life cycle" Would then be a subsection under behavior. Well, I moved the "Life cycle" section so that it now follows the newly titled "Feeding ecology and physiology" section. There is also a newly titled "Reproduction and life cycle" section. It is less "messy", and the titles remain encyclopedic. ✅

There is some redundancy in that section, which will probably be solved by a split as well. Done. ✅

"Culture", I would rather call such a section "relationship with humans" or some such, is more inclusive. So far, I've never been in a relationship with a fish, but I wouldn't rule it out. I followed your suggestion but used "Human interaction" for the section title, and moved the relative subsections into that section. ✅

"but only in the genus Polyodon (P. spathula and the extinct P. tuberculata)" Before that, you write the genus only contains one species..... Done. ✅

I think bullet point lists in article sections is not preferred... Removed, now all prose. ✅

"The photo period" What is that? Fixed. ✅

"Paddlefish fry grow rapidly" What is that? Fixed. ✅

"The largest paddlefish on record was captured in Lake Okoboji, Iowa.... Moved to Sport fishing section where it fits best. ✅

The image under taxonomy is rather small and blurry. I'd prefer to not use a drawing, so I'll try to find a better u/w shot.

The sport fishing section would make more sense as a subsection under culture/human relations. Done. ✅

The Population decline section should also cover IUCN categorisation and conservation efforts. Done. ✅

Whew! Atsme☯^Consult 03:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, all the changes look good. I'll read through the lead now (perhaps with some extra comments). Nice work! FunkMonk (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there are a few things in the lead that are not mentioned in the article, which they should be. For example "American paddlefish are one of only two extant taxon in the paddlefish family (Polyodontidae) remaining in the world. The other is the critically endangered Chinese paddlefish, Psephurus gladius, endemic to the Yangtze River Basin in China where there is growing concern the species may now be extinct."
And: "The etymology of the paddlefish's scientific name, Polyodon, which means many toothed, is believed to be in reference to the paddlefish's numerous gill rakers. Adult paddlefish are toothless, although numerous small teeth less than 1 mm (0.039 in) were found in a 630 mm (25 in) paddlefish; spathula references the elongated, paddle shaped snout."
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, but it does not go into behaviour much, and there is a bit too much about conservation issues. I'd cut the last paragraph of the lead down extensively, and add more info about physical features and behaviour instead.
The two photos under Reproduction are now parallel on the same "line", they should be skewed, so the text isn't "sandwiched". Also consider inverting their right/left alignment, so the animals are facing the text (though that point is not so important for animals as for images of humans).
I can see that there are at least three occurrences of the binomial name among the citations which need to be italicised. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of the lead you pointed out have been included in the body, the lead has been polished, and it's ready to go.

I had to leave the larval photograph on the left side because when I tried repositioning it, the whole article went out of balance. The larval image is smaller than the others, so it looks out of place when lined up to the right with the wider images. Also, I did not have any luck trying to skew the Images, and I didn't want to move them away from their relative sections. Did what I could to make it work, so if you know the trick to moving images where you want them, please feel free to do so.

Fixed all the italicization in the body of the article, and in the citations. Good catch.

Is she ready for a GA rating, and a DYK nom? Atsme☯^Consult 08:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I removed the small photo of the larval paddlefish, and uploaded video of the embryonic transformation to larval stage. The video shows better detail, heartbeat, movement, etc. Atsme☯^Consult 23:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment Nice article, as I'm sure FunkMonk will agree. I did find the use of "American paddlefish" and "paddlefish" inconsistent. For example, the first paragraph calls the subject of the article "American paddlefish" but the second paragraph opens Paddlefish are endemic to the Mississippi River Basin, which is true only of American paddlefish. Sticking to one English name throughout would be clearer. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look nice, and I agree with Peter's suggestion. By the way, are you actually the owner of the embryo video? The description says so. FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead, thank you. I thought it best to go with American paddlefish for consistency. Wasn't quite sure at first considering the lead paragraph states "paddlefish" is a common name. The question also arises with regards to global commercialization, and the different countries involved in paddlefish culture. Will the global populations still be considered American paddlefish, or will phylogenesis play a role in a potential name change? FunkMonk, re: footage of embryo - oops. Will fix that today. Atsme☯^Consult 15:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass it once the image issue is solved. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is solved. Atsme☯^Consult 00:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, it seems alright to me. Passed! You produced those documentaries by the way? If so, cool! FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Now I'll get it nominated for DYK, but I'm not familiar with In The News....Atsme☯^Consult 00:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with either. Good luck! FunkMonk (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]