Talk:Sturgeon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'll take on this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Interesting article.

• Why is there a (video) image in the lead section? And why is it not the standard size?

• The long list of rivers in the "Range and habitat" section would be MUCH better handled by a map; most of the text could then be dropped.

• Range and habitat - there are 27 different species, 9 in North America and they inhabit different areas but there is some crossover. I've only seen separate maps for each species.

Well, it would be desirable to assemble a single map based on the separate ones but it isn't a GA requirement. Actually someone must have prepared one somewhere.

• How come there is no article on Acipenserinae: it might possibly redirect here (a horrible child-to-parent link, hmm) - not sure if that's right, as while it's covered here, so is Scaphirhynchinae, which has a separate article. A better answer might be to move most of the Species table out of here to a stub on Acipenserinae. Whatever the solution, I'm not comfortable with the current organisation; see below.

• I don't know why there's no article on Acipenserinae. Do you feel enterprising? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Not just now, but thanks for asking! I've decided to zap a stub in place so we can clear out the species list - this solves one knotty problem here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"Evolution" section

• Evolution is a process in geological time. There should be a paragraph or subsection about "Fossil history" (or similar name).

Yanosteus longidorsalis, Early Cretaceous (146–100 mya), Yixian Formation, Liaoning, China

• The Fossil section should have at least one image of a fossil from Commons, labelled with its age/geological period, name, and locality. Here's a splendid specimen.

Inserted.

• Since we're covering a family, there should be a cladogram showing at least the external relationships (you could use the one at Actinopterygii#Classification with a minor tweak to put Sturgeons in boldface instead of Actinopterygii).

Inserted.

• I'd suggest there should also be a small cladogram of the internal relationships within the Acipenseridae. This would probably be able to replace the Table of species and the Species section, too, see below. At the least, the sections should be grouped (towards the end of the article) - it makes no sense covering evolution/taxonomy/species three times in different parts of the article.

Sections reworked.

"Interaction with humans" section

• Suggest that 'Conservation status' and 'Uses' both be grouped under a new heading 'Interactions with humans' (or similar) and placed as the last section of the article.

• Conservation status really only covers the EU populations, but the issue is global, and needs wider coverage. A major aspect is Sturgeon poaching in Russia, for example: there seem to be plenty of reliable sources.

Y 13:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• The paragraph about value of fisheries for meat and caviar is uncited, and needs also to be expanded.

Y 13:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• The claim about 'royal fish' seems to be exclusively British - either say so (with source), or show with sources the geographical extent of the claim. It seems to have been 'royal' in Tsarist Russia, given the taxes levied on it by Tsar Nicolas II.

Y 13:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Can't see we need Heraldry in the lead, far too minor. Put it in the new 'Humans' section. Better put the coat of arms image beside it.

Moved.

• Caviar is better covered in the lead (and cited) than in the body. I think we need a whole subsection of "Humans" on "Caviar" - the obvious thing to do would be to adapt the lead of the Caviar article and use the key refs from there, with an image too. The key point is the one made in the lead, namely that the market for caviar is driving sturgeon to extinction; hence the Caviar section is critically important, and should be next to and related to the Conservation section by an introductory lead-in paragraph at the top of "Humans".

Done, but section could be expanded.

Y 13:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• The material in "Behavior" about injuries to humans should go in the "Humans" section.

Done.

• Talk of "Leviathans and Methuselahs of freshwater fish" should go in Humans, probably, and needs to be cited. Here's a ref in a 2016 novel, let's hope it wasn't based on this article, hmm? It says "He barely dared dream of angling for Walt or for Hart--those two slippery silver sturgeons, each eighteen feet long and weighing, together, a metric ton. Guarding their salty eggs, that humble caviar. Walt, the monstrous Methuselah, with his prehistoric whiskers in the murky bottom. And Hart, the lithe Leviathan, his steel-cabled fins propelling him through the upper currents." Unless you have older sources.

Y removed it. 13:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"Classification" table

• The 'Classification' table is interesting but isn't a substitute for a cladogram (it's very coarse-grained for relationships), and it is a misnomer as it gives names, sizes, lifespans, and conservation status as well as "classification". I'm actually unsure whether the thing is a good idea at all - articles on families are by no means obliged to try to cover every genus and species, and often it's simply impossible. With 25 species it's just about bearable but very bulky.

• Ideally all the images would be on white background, all be paintings, and all face the same way (e.g. to the right). Yeah, I know. Not a GA requirement.

• The image for A. schrenckii takes up way too much height, making its row absurdly high

- actually, I'll crop it for you now.

• There is no need for separate columns for "Fishbase" and "FAO" in the table - these refs can just be placed in the "Species" column after the species names to which they apply.

• Similarly, in the "IUCN status" column of the table, there is no need to repeat the status in icon and words, suggest all the words be removed and you just use icons (or letters) with a brief key above or below the table.

• The "Species" column in the table has generic names redundant with the names in the "Genera" column, so I suggest all these are written like A. persicus (preserving the wikilinks) rather than "Acipenser persicus".

I've boldly struck the table, retitled the section and added some phylogeny. Some detail of the fossil record would be desirable, with image and sources. There is scope for restoring some of the struck data in a 'Conservation' section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• The "Species" section (after the table) is basically redundant to the "Classification" table. Please remove one or the other; there is no requirement in a Family article to give details of who named each species (that's for the Species articles to cover). Both the section and the table would be redundant to an internal cladogram, which could be illustrated with the images in the table.

I've removed the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary

CC, today turned out to be Good Friday for more than one reason. I have responded to all the suggestions that were within the realm of my physical and mental capacities. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

OK, that's fine. There are suggestions for improvements but the article is well up to the required standard. Happy Easter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! If I find time, I'm going to create the map you suggested, and possibly prep the article to be a potential FA nom. You did a great job and made excellent suggestions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)