Talk:Fishing cat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


IUCN status of Fishing cat[edit]

From various secondary sources, I have found recently that fishing cat is classified as Endangered not vulnerable. Anyone please confirm and change its status. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heba Aisha the IUCN Red List website still currently says vulnerable here (21 June 2016). If you have any more recent reliable sources I suggest you list them here for people to review. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IUCN status is Vulnerable, which is one of their three threatened categories, along with Endangered and Critically Endangered. Is it possible that the other sources are using endangered as a general description (=IUCN threatened) rather than referring specifically to the IUCN category? The fishing cat is "endangered" in a general sense, but not "Endangered" according to IUCN criteria (note cases). —  Jts1882 | talk  15:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possible is also that these various secondary sources are websites that have not been updated since 2016. I've seen a blog referring to the outdated status. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Fishing cat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 00:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Wolverine XI, I can tell you've put a lot of work into this article but it looks like it's missing some information. A search on Google Scholar brings some more detailed information on it's hunting and feeding habits, along with other studies that aren't used here. Also, the IUCN has a lot of information on the threats and population which aren't used here. There's no mention of humans hunting them for food. I'd also expect some information on predators and parasites. Unfortunately I believe this is a quickfail, however once you've addressed the broadness issue I recommend you re-submit. grungaloo (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Fishing cat/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 15:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Wolverine XI, in the less than 14 hours since the review was last quickfailed, the article has not had substantive change per the feedback of Grungaloo. The only addition was a section on infections. The article still has the same major gaps in content, in particular: interactions with humans, hunting patterns, feeding, parental care, and information from the IUCN. Furthermore, a lot of the language is highly technical and difficult to read. As just one example, "There is evidence that the nominate taxon and the Javan fishing cat are distinguishable by skull morphometrics" is unbroachable to anyone who is not an expert in taxonomy. Please take time to address these concerns before nominating the article again, and please refrain from re-nominating any article so quickly without making substantive improvements after a quickfail. Fritzmann (message me) 15:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop assuming and look at the article history. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the comparison I viewed. Aside from the infections section, one sentence on hunting has been added and three sentences on human interactions have been added. These do not adequately fill the content gaps identified in the last two reviews. I was not assuming, and I did look at the article history. Please do not remove GA reviews from the article's talk page. Fritzmann (message me) 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]