Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American paddlefish/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

American paddlefish[edit]

Nominator(s): Atsme☯Consult 20:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the planktivorous American paddlefish, a relict species of ray-finned fish native to North America. American paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) are one of only two remaining taxa in the Polyodontidae family, and the only living species in the genus Polyodon. They are among the largest and longest lived freshwater fishes in North America. They have been extirpated from most of their historic range, and are currently listed as vulnerable (VU A3de ver 3.1) on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The article is comprehensive, and provides a broad scope of useful information about a species that has remained relatively unchanged for over sixty million years. The article recently received a GA rating. Atsme☯Consult 20:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Paddlefish_distribution.png: where did the data for this map come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The data comes from government sources, including the US Geological Survey, US Fish & Wildlife Service, and numerous other government sources. Example can be seen here [2] Atsme☯Consult 16:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Tezero[edit]

I haven't done a biology article in a while; this might be interesting. Some initial comments:

  • The intro's on the long side for an article of this prose size. I think it could be pared to two-thirds its current size with little negative consequence.
  • I see some misuse of commas, e.g. "Violations can result in substantial monetary fines, and imprisonment.", "in China where there", "to their decline, and will", "otherwise be exposed to air, or covered", "earliest ancestors whose fossil record".
  • "in the Great Lakes and Canada, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania" - why are the Great Lakes and Canada grouped as one unit instead of separate entries in the list?
  • "regulations were enacted" - should be "have been enacted"
  • "commonly called "paddlefish", but are also referred to as "Mississippi paddlefish", "spoon-billed cats", or "spoonbill"" - pick either italics or quotes; using both is for situations like quoting text in a foreign language
  • "It is endemic to the Yangtze River Basin in China, and unlike the planktivorous American paddlefish, they are strong swimmers" - why do you switch from "it" to "they"? Pick one pronoun and stick to it.
  • Similarly: "The critically endangered, possibly extinct Chinese paddlefish, Psephurus gladius, is the closest extant relative of American paddlefish" - That's THE American paddlefish to you! I wouldn't recommend omitting the "the", but if you're going to, do so throughout the page.
  • "They commonly inhabited large, free-flowing rivers, braided channels, backwaters, and oxbow lakes throughout the Mississippi River drainage basin, adjacent Gulf drainages, the Great Lakes and rivers in Ontario, Canada." - This is quite a run-on; please fix.

Tezero (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. In transit now, but as soon as I arrive at destination, will begin the clean-up. I tend to put a checkmark beside each suggestion when I've completed the task. If you have any objections to that process, please advise. Thank you for contributing your time. Atsme☯Consult 14:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's fine; just make sure it's easy to see (bold it, maybe?). Unlike an increasing number of reviewers, I don't care about my comments being split up; actually, I prefer it that way rather than responding to everything at the end. Tezero (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections have been made in accordance with the initial review. Next? Atsme☯Consult 21:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero, are you still reviewing this article? Just wondered because it is in currently in Prep 5 about to be moved into the que for DYK. Atsme☯Consult 16:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I completely forgot. Ping me again in a day or so if I haven't followed up; I'm on bus station Wi-Fi on my iPod and as such can't really review now. How do you DYK an FAC that's been open for this long, though - or is it that it had just passed GAN and DYK is being sluggish? Tezero (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeppers to "just" passed GAN and DYK is being slllluuugish. Aren't bus stations fun? Safe travels! Atsme☯Consult 21:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lacepéde, 1797, " - should either be parenthesis or "In 1797, ..."
  • "Polyodon which" - comma
  • "A second, extinct species, P. tuberculata, fossils of which are found in the Lower Paleoscene Tullock Formation in Montana, approximately 60 million years ago" - This sentence has no verb.
  • "When establishing the genus, Lacepéde dismissed speculation by some contemporary taxonomists who suggested paddlefish may be a unique genus of sharks because of some morphological similarities such as a heterocercal tail, and cartilaginous skeleton." - also a bit long, try introducing that this speculation existed first. Also, why did Lacepede dismiss this?
  • "However, they are critically endangered, and now believed to be extinct." - remove the second comma. Also, why are they "believed" to be extinct? When was the last one seen? Are there efforts to find more?
  • " sword-like rostrum" - link this in the first instance. I don't know what it is.
  • "Adult American paddlefish are toothless " - comma afterwards
  • "; spathula references the elongated, paddle shaped snout or rostrum" - Why is this semicoloned clause connected to this sentence? I don't see the connection.
  • " morphological characters" - shouldn't it be "characteristics"? Also, link this earlier; I was able to tell by context what it meant but some readers might not.
  • " dates from the" - nonstandard phrasing; how about "dates back to the"?
  • "are highly derived" - ???

Tezero (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero - Got 'er done. Hope the changes meet with your approval. As a sidebar note - morphological characters is correct, but I went ahead and changed it since it created a trip hazard. Atsme☯Consult 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero ping, ping - the article is 1st in the DYK feature today.  :-) Atsme☯Consult 14:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero Hope you haven't forgotten me. Just wanted you to know we got a respectable 7,749 hits during the DYK. Also had some vandalism on the day it was featured, but the vandal police caught them in time. Atsme☯Consult 01:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Here's more:

  • "ranging from bluish-gray to black dorsally grading to white ventrally" - confusing; try to reword.
  • "deeply forked heterocercal caudal fin" - I... don't know what any of this means.
  • "embryo to fry" - can you link "fry" and maybe "embryo"?
  • "However, laboratory experiments in 1993 that utilized advanced technology in the field of electron microscopy have established conclusively that the rostrum of American paddlefish is covered with tens of thousands of sensory receptors, morphologically similar to the ampullae of Lorenzini of sharks and rays, and that they are indeed passive ampullary-type electroreceptors used by American paddlefish to detect plankton." - Huge, huge, run-on.
  • "a navigational aid to mediate obstacle avoidance" - First of all, what else would navigational aids do? Second, if you're going to keep the second clause, change "mediate" to something else, as it implies that too much obstacle avoidance is a bad thing.
  • "Such feeding behavior is considered ram suspension-feeding." - That doesn't say much. What's ram suspension-feeding?

Tezero (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You asked, First of all, what else would navigational aids do? - biological GPS ascertaining position and direction.
  • You asked, What's ram suspension-feeding? - You must have missed the two sentences that describe it. Starts off with "When a swarm of zooplankton is detected, the paddlefish will swim forward....". There's also a video captioned "Paddlefish ram suspension-feeding zooplankton in aquarium".
  • I know, but I find it hard to believe that "ram suspension-feeding" is a conjugatable verb phrase. Actually, by looking at the video caption I thought "ram" was the verb and "suspension-feeding" was an adjective modifying "zooplankton". Tezero (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tezero I ran with your subliminal suggestion to create a general morphology diagram. Hope you like it. Atsme☯Consult 18:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "Ova staging" - what is this? If it is simply the activity of cutting the fish open and whatnot, rephrase the sentence to something like "A process involving making a small incision and ... is known as 'ova staging'."
  • "They are currently proposed for listing as VU 3de throughout their range as the result of a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service assessment that suggests "an overall population size reduction of at least 30% may occur within the next 10 years or three generations due to actual or potential levels of exploitation and the effects of introduced taxa, pollutants, competitors or parasites."" - quite a run-on; please split somehow or paraphrase the quote.
  • "Federal and state resource agencies utilize artificial propagation techniques to mitigate areas where self-sustaining populations no longer exist" - what do you mean "mitigate"? Protect the individuals still alive? Try to get them to reproduce? Protect the areas themselves with no regards to the fish? Please explain in-text.
  • "and was oriented primarily on the maintenance of the sport fishery" - ???. Reword, please.

The prose is, I think, probably comprehensible enough aside from the complaints I've articulated so far. I can't speak to the sources - I haven't looked hard at them and I'm not well-versed in the sourcing standards for biology articles - but they look alright, too, as does the comprehensivess. Nice work, overall. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero Ok - I executed the repairs per your request. Considering the scrutiny this article has been under with both the GA and DYK reviews, not to mention drive-by collaborators, I was hoping your work would have been a little easier. You caught things none of the other editors caught, and made the article that much better. Good job. Atsme☯Consult 22:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I can support now. Regarding the combing, that's just how it goes. Featured articles have higher standards than good articles: for example, the prose has to be more fluent, the sources must all be formatted correctly and consistently, and the standards for reliable sources are noticeably higher. Tezero (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero, please forgive my inexperience, but is there anything else I'm supposed to do, or is the ball in court from here? Atsme☯Consult 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FACs need at least three supports to pass, along with an image review and a source review, and they can't have any oppose votes that are deemed to be legitimate. Unfortunately, there isn't really anything you can do but wait and ask relevant WikiProjects on their talk pages to drop by the review. It's not a perfect process, admittedly... Tezero (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I usually make an appearance at FAC to nitpick prose and copywriting issues, but this article is well-written. I had a couple of issues with commas and unit conversions that I changed myself. I only have 2 comments, which don't affect my support, but I think could improve the article. First, in the Taxonomy section, the last sentence of the first paragraph is "Lacepéde established Polyodon for paddlefish because he believed Bonnaterre's account in 1788 was wrong to suggest paddlefish were a unique genus of sharks before knowing their country of origin and habits.[5]". Who is Bonnaterre, and what was his account in 1788? There is no other mention of this. The second issue is more of a curiosity about the evolutionary history of the species; if the Chinese paddlefish is the closest extant relative of the American paddlefish, and the only other fossils mentioned in the article appear to have been found in Montana, is there suspicion that different species appeared globally at different times? China is a long way from the Mississippi River watershed. Neil916 (Talk) 18:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Neil916, thank you for your support, and for the comma and conversion corrections. I've struggled somewhat with the comma issue because U.S. standards differ somewhat from accepted standards in the U.K. and Canada. Conversions are another trip hazard for me, but I have no excuse for not getting them right. Haste is the culprit. I should have been paying closer attention. With regards to your additional two comments, I was happy to make the improvements. Atsme☯Consult 12:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

  • The lead section is meant to be a summary of the body of the text, easy to comprehend for someone too busy or lazy to read the rest of the article. Your lead is deficient in some respects. It deals in detail with some topics while completely omitting others. There is little about the fish's description or ecology and much about its common names, distribution and Chinese counterpart.
  • The lead uses complex terms such as "basal chondrostean ray-finned fish", "rostrum" and "peripheral range" which could do with some explanation even where they are linked.
  • There is some overlinking in the body of the article with duplicate wikilinks.
  • The "Tableau_encyclopédique_et_méthodique" should not include the "_"s.
  • I am far from competent myself in formatting references but I can see there are some inconsistencies in the citations. At least one has a date in a different format. Multiple authors are treated differently in different places. #7, Encyclopedia of Life has a stray "<". Some citations have years, others months and years. The capitalisation of the title varies etc.
  • I'll look at the article in further detail later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cwmhiraeth. I fixed the stray "<", and wanted to let you know I use Provelt to add references. For sources that include citing instructions, I follow their suggestion as applicable to Provelt. I will go through and get the dates consistent, but some references provide only the year, not the month and day. Also, some of the sources provide first/last names, while others included last names only. In instances where there are more than one of the same last name for different authors, I tried to include first names when provided. The variety of sources from web urls to journals to books make it difficult to maintain true consistency. I will do what I can to meet your expectations. Atsme☯Consult 19:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would be to use just the year and omit the month and day. You can probably fill out the author names with a bit of detective work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The accessdate in Provelt is automatically added using month-day-year. I can use year for publication date, but not all provide a publication date. Also, the titles you mentioned not having a consistency to upper case or lower case are done the way the paper is titled. I used the exact format of the source. Atsme☯Consult 20:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some of the books are listed using last names only, especially when there are several authors. I would think it would be far more important to list the references according to the way they are listed by the publisher-seller-source rather than trying to name them according to achieve consistency, especially if it makes it difficult to find the book.
Example: [3] - at the bottom of the page it shows how to cite the page. I thought listing the source as suggested was similar to including a CC license which require specific accreditation. Yes, or no? Atsme☯Consult 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the citations - used year for publication date, but left access date as is.
Hang on here... Sorry to play ping pong with this article, but I think this is definitely bad advice. There is no justification for changing references to become more vague when they are already specific with regards to date. Some references may only list the year, when it is a book, but others will include month and year, and others will list month, date, and year. Edits like this are definitely a move in the wrong direction. Please refer to WP:CITEHOW for specific content guidelines relating to dates in references. I can't find anything in the manual of style that says references shouldn't be as specific as possible because it looks bad. Sorry, it looks like you've already obliterated the dates in many of those references, but that work needs to be undone. Neil916 (Talk) 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to books and journal articles when I suggested years should be used rather than having a few with months and years with the rest having just years. This advice does not apply to websites or news outlets where a full date and an access date should be used. I was also told that to be consistent, I should either have locations of publishers for all books or for none. As I mentioned above, I am far from an expert on referencing. You could ask Nikkimaria (who is) if she would check the references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I changed all the dates to maintain consistency as requested. I had completed everything requested before I read this post. What should I do now? Atsme☯Consult 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the author names so all are full names.
I originally quoted article titles in exactly the form used by the authors, but in my first foray into FAC, Bivalvia, I was told "consistently use either title case or sentence case for journal article and book titles". In fact I was given a lot of useful advice about formatting references by Sasata in that FAC if you want to look it up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... a deeply forked heterocercal caudal fin similar to that of sharks although they are not of the same taxon." - I think it would be better to say "not closely related" here.
  • Having established the scientific name for the Chinese paddlefish, I think it would be better to stick to the vernacular name thereafter.
  • "Chinese paddlefish also have fewer, thicker gill rakers unlike those of Polyodon spathula" - Similarly with Polyodon spathula, American paddlefish might be better here.
  • "Chinese paddlefish also have fewer, thicker gill rakers unlike those of Polyodon spathula which are composed of extensive comb-like filaments believed to have inspired the etymology of the genus name, Polyodon, a Greek compound word meaning "many toothed." - This sentence would be better split. In fact the derivation of the word Polydon would be better elsewhere.
  • "...numerous small teeth less than 1 mm (0.039 in)" - (0.04 in) would be better.
  • Having stated "However, for most populations the median age is five to eight years and the maximum age is fourteen to eighteen years." it seems rather contradictory to say "Females do not begin spawning until they are seven to ten years old, some as late as sixteen to eighteen years old." Later again you state "American paddlefish can live to be 60 years or older." - It might be better to have all the information on longevity in one place.
  • "The growing importance of American paddlefish for their meat and roe became the catalyst for further development of culture techniques for aquaculture in the U.S. rather than restoration." - I'm not sure "restoration" is the right word here.
  • Link or explain "Spermiating", "polyculture",
  • The last paragraph of "Overfishing and habitat destruction" repeats some information in the previous paragraph, and it seems odd to have the sentence about the history of artificial propagation at the very end.
  • Does the paddlefish feed on the larvae of zebra mussels? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. Such studies are rare and speculative. The following link [4] names a few benthic species. Paddlefish larvae may feed on them, but again it's speculation. Atsme☯Consult 20:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added to the zebra mussel section regarding your question about veliger predation by paddlefish. If reviewers feel what I've added is not acceptable, we can always delete it. Atsme☯Consult 23:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with the changes you have made to the article and am now supporting its candidacy on the grounds of comprehensibility and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. I am duly impressed with the thoroughness of each review, and how the suggestions have made this article that much better. Atsme☯Consult 09:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Footnotes should appear right after punctuation, no spaces in between
  • FN6: this formatting doesn't match that of similar sources
  • FN7: EOL is neither an author nor technically a publisher - it's usually treated as a publication
  • FN9: why is this bolded?
  • FN8: MDNR is the publisher, not the author, and the version in the publisher parameter has a typo
  • FNs 3 and 13 are similar sources and should be similarly formatted (hint: 13 is closer to being right, but neither has the correct author listed - the Center is a publisher, a subdivision of USGS)
  • FN14: can truncate GBooks URL after pg=PA254. Also, Part III is a section title, but not part of the page number; "page=254" is sufficient there
  • FN15: Texas A&M is the publisher for the images only; the entity given as the work is the main publisher
  • FN16: BioScience is the journal title; 57 is the volume; 5 is the issue number; all of these and the doi belong in their own individual parameters. "Life Sciences" doesn't appear to belong in the citation at all
  • FN19: again, don't double publishers in author field. If there is no author given you can leave that out
  • FN21: the thing listed as the author isn't an author; the thing listed as a work isn't a work and has a typo in it
  • FN22: the thing listed as the author could be considered the author, but doesn't match what is given by the source
  • FN23: despite what the URL indicates, this is a separate publication, not a part of the snagging season page
  • FN24: the thing listed as the publisher is the work; the publisher is MDC, but you should spell that out
  • FN25: this is actually an online copy of a journal article, not a web source
  • Lamer means "Louisiana Marine Education Resources" - it's a work, not part of the publisher, and it's actually LaMER
  • FN32: journal title is incomplete, page numbers are doubled, everything that isn't the journal title shouldn't be in that parameter, you don't need to provide section name or author affiliation information. Same with FN33.
  • FN37: academia.edu is a republisher, not the original publisher of this work.
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN39: "press release" is a work type, but not a work title
  • FN40: need full date, Tulsa World is a work not a publisher
  • FN41: need full date, Outdoors is a section not a work, The Chattanoogan is a work not a publisher

Reluctant oppose pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nikkimaria, I learned a lot about proper referencing for WP during that session. I very much appreciated your helpful notes, and thank you for the time you invested. Hopefully, all the citations you mentioned are now correct. The FN#s won't be the same because I combined FN3 & FN13, and deleted another so your FN14 is actually FN12 now. Atsme☯Consult 15:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but still work to be done here:

  • FN2: there is actually a real author for this, but you have to dig around the site to find him. Also, your link goes to a specific page of the project - do you mean to cite only that page or the project as a whole?
  • Have we lost a few DOIs? Those are actually very helpful and should be provided when known, much like ISBNs for books
  • Be consistent about whether you include publishers for periodicals (journals, newspapers, magazines)
  • FN5: the title you give matches the URL, but it's not actually what the source itself says. Also, this is republished from a print publication, so you should give the details from that publication
  • FN6: still need to italicize the Latin name
  • The IUCN refs were actually fine before
  • FN11: the thing given as the author is not an author, the thing given as a work is not a work - both could technically be considered subdivisions of the publisher, but the Survey could also be considered a work
  • FN12: you use semicolons to separate authors here, but in most other refs you use commas - be consistent
  • FN14: BioScience is the journal title, not part of the article title
  • FN20: again, that title matches what is coded in the HTML, but not what the source actually says
  • FN23: this is a republication of a print source - you should provide the full publication information from that source
  • FN25, FN26: like FN5, these are from a print source originally. FN27 is closer to being right, but includes the volume number in the work parameter instead of its own
  • FN29: again, online republication, provide original source details
  • Sometimes you include "and" in your author list, sometimes it's commas all the way through - be consistent
  • FN32, FN37: also web republications of print sources
  • FN34: don't double publisher in author parameter
  • FN40: Outdoors is the section title, not the work title; you've taken out the actual work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, yowza - now I see why it's important to get the references right when you first add the inline citation with the prose. Going back over 40 references is a booger, especially when you suck at it like I do. Is there a citation check tool somewhere I can use? I made the changes, think I got them all done. I'll get better with practice, but right now, I'm a rusty bucket.

Source spot-check by Laser brain[edit]

  • Ref 3, verified but I found the info on p. 211 of the electronic book; please double-check this.
  • Ref 10b, verified/OK
  • Ref 22c, verified/OK
  • Ref 28, verified/OK
  • Ref 33, verified/OK

--Laser brain (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laser_brain, you were absolutely correct. I have no clue why I listed p 213 instead of p 211. It's fixed now. Thank you. Question - is there a tool available on Wiki for checking citation accuracy, or does it have to be done manually? Atsme☯Consult 19:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is done manually. I usually check for verification and also look out for any potential issues with close paraphrasing. --Laser brain (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria - are you through - did the citations pass? Laser_brain - I corrected the one ref - is all ok now? Atsme☯Consult 02:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Atsme, I've struck my oppose, but it's not quite passing yet - see below. Unfortunately most of this is done by hand, no tool to do it for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review v3

  • FN5: 46 appears to be a volume number, not part of the publication title
  • FN13: Texas Freshwater Fishes appears to be a work, and in the publisher name you've got your dash in the wrong place
  • Sometimes you include retrieval date for journals, other times not - be consistent
  • FN14: BioScience not Bioscience
  • FN16 is a very similar source to FN5, but the formatting is different
  • FN23: why is the month split from the year?
  • FN25: I'm not entirely sure what you're citing here. You're linking to a symposium paper, but the formatting is a cross between a book chapter and a report section. Same with FN26. FN27 is closer, but somehow there are too many titles there. I'm not even really sure how to fix this at the moment...
  • FN29, extra space after Shelton
  • FN30: here's the "and" in the author list again
  • FN32: don't need his degree in there, do need an endash in the page range
  • FN38 and 39 format the publisher differently
  • FN39: "Outdoors" isn't the article title either; it's the section title. You really don't need that in there at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - all fixed. Pilot error navigating Provelt. I kept the urls to the symposium papers so the information will be accessible to readers, but I cited the journals. Fixed the typos, and whatever else you listed. Atsme☯Consult 15:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review v4 - almost done

  • Don't need retrieval dates for books using GBooks links
  • FN13: sorry, this still isn't right. If you're going to use the publisher suggested at the bottom of that page, you'll need to remove Texas State from the work title. This is also very different from the version in FN24 - I think the latter is okay
  • FN14: see note from v3
  • FN16: where are you getting your publication information from? It doesn't match that provided in the link given
  • FN35 is missing work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria All done. Re: your question about FN 16 - the information comes from the publisher's website, (American Fisheries Society). [5]. Click on read more, and you get this: [6] Isn't it more important to link to the actual cited paper/page in the journal so readers can verify the information rather than link to the journal that is for sale?
Yes, but that link doesn't match what you're giving in that citation either - according to that link, Paddlefish Management... is the work title (and the symposium title), it should be italicized not in quote marks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, my humble apologies for the transpositional brain fart. The journal title and chapter title have been fixed. Atsme☯Consult 17:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved my prior thank you above the closed|promoted template so it doesn't interfere with the close bot. "I just want to extend my sincerest THANK YOU to Tezero, Neil916, Cwmhiraeth, Nikkimaria, Laser_brain, Ian Rose, and all the other contributing editors who helped me improve and expand American paddlefish to FA status. It was a great experience and quite educational, although a little taxing at times, but only because of my own ineptitude. I truly believe in the GA and FA process, and consider it a great honor and quite an accomplishment to have been part of the process. I look forward to being able to give back in kind to such a worthy project." Atsme☯Consult 18:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC) - hope the move fixes it. Atsme☯Consult 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/American_paddlefish/archive1&oldid=1088824374"