Talk:Apex predator/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Basilosauridae (talk · contribs) 05:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs more citations, specifically in the section related to ecotourism and Effect on competitors and prey.

Ecotourism: Added factors involved, with ref.

Effect on competitors and prey: Added example and ref.

In the Effects on competitors and prey section it states "Where two competing species are in an ecologically unstable relationship, apex predators tend to create stability if they prey upon both." This is uncited and I doubt its accuracy.

Removed.

In the introduction is states that apex predators are keystone predators, but later in the article it clarifies that not all apex predators are keystone predators. These are two different concepts and I wonder if a section on keystone predators is relevant in this article, as it is a topic that has its own article.

Said "can" serve as keystone species, i.e. there's an overlap, not equivalence.

Also in the introduction it notes that a study defined apex predators as organisms above the trophic level of four. This was taken from the methods section of a paper and does not represent a general consensus in marine biology. While it does note that it was taken from one study, its placement in the article suggests it is a general convention.

Removed.

Post revision comments

Thanks for taking the time to revise the article.

Regarding keystone species, the sentence I was referring to is: "Apex predators are usually defined in terms of trophic dynamics, meaning that they occupy the highest trophic levels and serve as keystone species, vital to their ecosystems".

I've removed the whole paragraph about keystone species, per the next item, and have cut the keystone mention from the lead.

Specifically for the content related to keystone species, which I feel isn't entirely relevant to this article, I am not able to pass it. However, I am new to the review process and will be requesting a second opinion. Basilosauridae (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basilosauridae: There's no need for that, we've hardly discussed it and there's no evidence that we disagree irretrievably, which is what 2nd opinion implies. All you need to do is to tell me what you'd like and we'll work on it, hopefully converging swiftly on agreement. I've removed the keystone material from what is now the "Conservation" section, leaving just the gray wolf example: it's an apex predator. So we should be just about complete? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap: Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my recommendations. To be honest, I would like to participate in the GA review process, but it is a little more challenging and nuanced than I expected. The second opinion request is more for me to learn how someone more experienced would assess your article. I appreciate the hard work that you and others have put into this article, and don't want to waste your time or efforts. Let me know if you think it would be better for me to cancel this review (which I believe is possible) or move forward with a second opinion. I apologize for any inconvenience; my intentions are to make sure this article is reviewed appropriately and in-line with Wikipedia's standards. Basilosauridae (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basilosauridae, well, I think we're about complete really. What I'd suggest, instead of asking and waiting for someone else to weigh in, is to do two things: firstly, to read through a couple of completed GANs (i.e., reviews attached to existing Good Articles, you can pick any from the GA page that interest you), and secondly, to read slowly through the Good Article Criteria -in outline, is it well written?, is it verifiable?, does it cover the topic?, is it neutral?, is it stable?, and is it suitably illustrated? - and to satisfy yourself that this article does in fact meet those criteria. Of course, if you find any nonconformances, you can tell me here, and I'll fix 'em. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience and recommendations. I had a chance to review the Good Article process a little further and will be making a deeper review this evening. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 16:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post Post Review Comments Review: Electric Boogaloo

Note: I changed the titles of the sections under “Ecological roles” to be more consistent with biological terminology, and made a couple other minor stylistic/grammatical edits.

Additionally, I suggest a few ways to link/incorporate associations with the keystone species concept. Just want to clarify that I don’t think linking the concepts is a bad idea as my previous comments might suggest, I just thought the topic was given too much weight in previous iterations of this article.

Noted.

Formatting, Structure, Wikipedia Conventions No obvious visual issues.

Noted.

Mesopredators are mentioned a few times without explanation for what a mesopredator is. Wikipedia has an article on mesopredators, this article should link to that one.

Linked.

Writing Style & Grammar No obvious issues, besides a heavy use of examples, which is touched on below in the “content” assessment.

Noted.

Stylistically, I’m not a huge fan of notes. I think if it is information important enough for the article, there is a way to work it in. I’m not saying its important to change it for this review, just some feedback to consider.

Noted. There are often points that will interest some readers but that are too much for the main text.

Content Caption of lion photo: “The lion is Africa's apex land predator.” - Implies that lions are the only top predators in Africa.

Said 'one of'.

Lead section: “Food chains are often far shorter on land, usually limited to the third trophic level – for example, wolves prey mostly upon large herbivores.” -The first part of this sentence isn’t clear. Wikipedia currently defines trophic level as the number of steps away from the start of the food chain. If this is the case, I don’t think that terrestrial food webs are typically 3 organisms long. Its possible that the writer actually meant the third level of the ecological pyramid, but even then, I’m not sure the statement is accurate.

See next.

-Stylistically, I’m not sure the example involving wolves is needed in the lead.

Glossed with trophic levels; the example is very necessary.

Effect on community: We previously discussed keystone species. This might be a good place to include that connection. For example: “Removal of badgers (in a trial investigating bovine tuberculosis) caused hedgehog densities to more than double.[7] Apex predators that exert a top-down control on organisms in their community are often considered keystone species.

Done.

Effect on Ecosystem: “For example, reduction in the population of sperm whales, apex predators with trophic level 4.7, by hunting has caused an increase in the population of large squid, trophic level over 4.” -This article doesn’t clarify what the various levels mean, so I question if they should be included. Maybe using phrases like “of a higher trophic level” would be better than listing numbers, or, maybe a section on how trophic levels are assessed could be added.

The (fractional) numbers make the argument quantitative, so it isn't easy to see how we'd write this without them. The numbers aren't complicated. Article follows Trophic level (and most ecologists):

Level 1: Plants and algae make their own food and are called producers.
Level 2: Herbivores eat plants and are called primary consumers.
Level 3: Carnivores that eat herbivores are called secondary consumers.

At the end of this section, there is a sentence about mesopredator release. This could be made into a new paragraph and expanded upon.

Probably enough for an Apex predator article, there's more at Mesopredator release.

Ecological Roles section: This section uses a lot of examples to explain the concept. While examples help strengthen the article, they are doing a little bit too much of the heavy-lifting in this section. More general information would strengthen this section.

Added general concepts in lead-in sentences.

Conservation: This section is primarily examples, and I’m having a hard time understanding what is the general concept about apex predators that is being explained here.

Added lead-in sentence to give the overall message of the section.

In ecotourism: “Ecotourism sometimes relies on apex predators to attract business. Tour operators may in consequence decide to intervene in ecosystems, for example by providing food to attract predators to areas that can conveniently be visited. This in turn can have effects on predator population and therefore on the wider ecosystem.” -All this needs citation.

Citations were given, actually, but are now repeated for clarity.

“As a result, provisioning of species such as the tiger shark is controversial, but its effects are not well established by empirical evidence. Other affected apex predators include big cats and crocodiles.[24]” -without looking at the sources, its unclear what is happening with these animals regarding ecotourism and what are the effects.

Paragraph states directly that providing food attracts the predators (which prima facie is a disturbance); it also says (as you quote) that the results of doing that are not well established.

The second paragraph in the ecotourism section is strictly about ecotourism and doesn’t say anything about apex predators. I would argue that it doesn’t belong in this article.

Moved to Ecotourism.

In populated areas: “In densely populated areas like the British Isles, all the large native predators like the wolf, bear, wolverine and lynx have become locally extinct, allowing herbivores such as deer to multiply unchecked except by hunting. In 2015, plans were made to reintroduce lynx to the counties of Norfolk, Cumbria, and Northumberland in England, and Aberdeenshire in Scotland as part of the rewilding movement. The reintroduction of large predators is controversial, not least because of concern among farmers for their livestock. “ -All of this needs citation. In particular, a citation is needed to support that all large native predators are locally extinct in all densely populated areas like the British Isles.

Added ref, repeated existing ref for clarity, the para was already cited.

See Also section: Could also link to articles such as ecological pyramid, keystone species, food web, etc

Keystone is already linked. The other terms are accessible in the navbars below.

Completeness of Subject Coverage As suggested above, this article could use information on how trophic levels are assessed.

Added further link to Trophic level, which is the home of that topic. The Human trophic level section here is however quite explicit on how fractional levels were arrived at.

Quality of Citations No obvious issues.

Noted.

Additional Assessment Questions Does it have/need cleanup banners? no Does it contain original research? no Does it contain plagiarism? no Is the information stable? yes Is it properly illustrated? Could incorporate some of the graphs/charts from the food web, trophic level, or energy pyramid articles, but overall, yes.

Noted.

Thanks again for allowing me to take a second crack at it and learn how to do this. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 06:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The (fractional) numbers make the argument quantitative, so it isn't easy to see how we'd write this without them. The numbers aren't complicated. Article follows Trophic level (and most ecologists):

Level 1: Plants and algae make their own food and are called producers.
Level 2: Herbivores eat plants and are called primary consumers.
Level 3: Carnivores that eat herbivores are called secondary consumers."

You list three trophic levels here, but then list organisms at a level of 4 and 4.7, for example. That is where my confusion is.

One just continues ... Level 4, Carnivores that eat Level 3 carnivores ... I have glossed level 4 as "carnivores that eat carnivores".

Also, regarding the "in populated areas", I don't believe the citation supports this as a general idea. It does support that this is happening in the British Isles, but it doesn't support that this is happening in "all densely populated areas like the British Isles" and that it includes "all large native predators". If I am missing something, please point me to the passage that supports this sentence. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 19:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Said 'some'.

Ok great. I have some minor concerns about the strengths of the citations for the "in populated areas", so I found this source that provide some additional background information and supports the paragraph even more:

"Joel Berger. (1999) "Anthropogenic extinction of top carnivores and interspecific animal behaviour: implications of the rapid decoupling of a web involving wolves, bears, moose, and ravens". https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/joelberger/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2017/10/1999-Ravens-Food-Web-Dynamiics-PRSB.pdf

Added.

Additionally, here are a few things I found with some good, overarching material about the effects of apex predators on their community and ecosystem that could be incorporated if you wanted to add more content:

My only issue at this time is the trophic levels. I'm concerned that two systems are being presented without clear division between the two and their significance. I'm familiar with the 4 leveled ecological hierarchy that you laid out which is based on what eats what, but I'm not familiar with this system having a decimal component, like the 4.7 number given. Additionally, the human tropic level section includes an explanation for arriving at the number that is different than the criteria in the 4 leveled ecological hierarchy, leading me to believe these are two similar, but different classifications. let me look into this a little further, maybe I'm being dumb ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 02:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was being dumb. Change the sentence "For example, reduction in the population of sperm whales, apex predators with trophic level 4.7" to something to the effect of "... apex predators with a fractional trophic level of 4.7" and make it link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Fractional_trophic_levels and throw in my Joel Berger citation from above if you agree with it, and I'd say we're square. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 03:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]