Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smooth toadfish/archive1

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2015 [1].

Smooth toadfish[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article got a detailed GA review. It's not very big so am confident I can deal with issues promptly. I scoured everything I could for info, so gaps reflect gaps in real knowledge....have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: wikicup nomination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Relentlessly

Resolved comments from Relentlessly (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specific prose comments:

The smooth toadfish (Tetractenos glaber) is a species of fish in the pufferfish family Tetraodontidae native to shallow coastal and estuarine waters of southern Australia, where it is widespread and abundant. As an opening sentence, I think this is too much. I'd suggest The smooth toadfish (Tetractenos glaber) is a species of fish in the pufferfish family Tetraodontidae. It is native to shallow coastal and estuarine waters of southern Australia, where it is widespread and abundant.

duly split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raised levels of arsenic, cobalt, cadmium and lead in gills suggested the fish were absorbed these from the surrounding water. This doesn't quite make sense. You need to drop "were", I think.

removed...dunno how that got there... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fieldwork in Sydney waterways showed raised arsenic, lead, cadmium and cobalt corresponded with decreased lipid levels in liver and gonadal tissue, and raised cobalt and nickel correspond to increased protein levels in muscle, liver and gonadal tissue. I find "raised" a slightly difficult word here. I think "higher" or "increased" would both make the sentence easier to parse. I would also suggest including "that": Fieldwork in Sydney waterways showed that higher arsenic, lead &c.

duly tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is a nomen nudum as it does not provide enough detail or information to diagnose or properly describe the species,[7] Duméril having only written a (French) translation of the genus name—αφανης qui nе parait pas, ἃκανθα, épine ("with no thorns"). This sentence is also hard to parse. This is principally because of the dangling modifier. Further difficulty comes because it is not obvious that the dash is introducing a quotation. I'd suggest something like this: However, it is a nomen nudum as it does not provide enough detail or information to diagnose or properly describe the species,[7] since Duméril had only written a (French) translation of the genus name—"αφανης qui nе parait pas, ἃκανθα, épine" ("with no thorns"). Trying to work three languages into a sentence is never going to be easy, I know.

yes...I have a predilection for participles from Latin ant Greek ad school..changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With a total length of anywhere from 3–16 cm (1 1⁄8–6 1⁄4 in) One of my pet hates: introducing a range with "from" but then going on to use a dash. You want {{convert|3|to(-)|16|cm}}

a nice find! I never knew one could do that with that template...and I know a few places I need it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this is a good article, speaking as a non-specialist. Relentlessly (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all this done, I'm happy to support. (I have a similar eagerness for ablative absolutes and have to proof-read everything I write to remove them. What Cicero did to me...) Relentlessly (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

"This confusion in scientific literature with the closely related common toadfish" But the previous sentence does not mention such a confusion, only that the fish was recorded again by other writers? FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have rejigged thusly. is that clearer? The original info is on page 10 and 11 of this monograph Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in the collection of Alexandre Brongniart" Present him?

descriptor added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"published the species as Aphanacanthe reticulatus... in the new genus Aphanacanthe" Seems a bit repetitive, perhaps it could be stated that the genus was new without naming it again?

Ok, I tried this, flow ok? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and gave it the combination Spheroides glaber" perhaps link Combinatio nova?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"With a total length of anywhere from 3 to 16 cm" Are both adult sizes?

well...yeah, sort of. Fish gradually grow all their lives so fish that are to all intents and purposes mature and capable of breeding can be these sizes. Most I have seen are at the smaller end of this range... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add "total adult length"? FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

works for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"adnate" Explain.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the reticulated pattern continues upper side (lateral) body of the fish" on the upper side of the body?

yes - rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Smooth toadfish grow larger as they grow older" Seems like a given, but do you mean grow even after reaching adulthood/as long as they live?

yes - they grow steadily larger throughout their life. Shall I add "steadily"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as long as it it clear that it is past adulthood. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since confusion with the common toadfish is emphasised, perhaps mention the differences between the two?

I did in the last line of the description section. have added a word to clarify they look similar. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the spines for, when they are always within the skin?

for toadfish/pufferfish, spines are defensive. No idea why they have devolved in this species and seen nothing written on it. Given they are dangerously poisonous, probably unnecessary... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"However, its lack of spines makes it easier to handle" Easier than what?

than other toadfish - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - that's all I had to say, nice article! FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

Support Cas Liber, I completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it most certainly meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral and stable; and I assess that its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media used in this article is properly licensed, and the standard captioning works well. While I'm a proponent of Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, this is only suggested and not a requirement at FAC. Also per WP:DUPLINK, Tasmania can be de-linked in the "Distribution and habitat" section, seagrass can be de-linked in the "Conservation" subsection, and gonads can be de-linked in the "Feeding" section. Otherwise, I concur with the comments and assessments of FunkMonk and Relentlessly above. I can find no other aspects of the article that would inhibit this article's progression to Featured Article status. I commend you on your hard work on this article, and congratulate you on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

suggested links delinked. thx for support... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, you are quite welcome, and once again, job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Certainly not very big but that is not a criterion for FA. I believe the article is pretty comprehensive and covers possibly everything that should be for an article to be an FA. It's an excellent article, satisfying other criteria. A trivial comment: I have seen most of the alt texts of images having full stops at the end. Also, the first letter starts with a uppercase one. However, that is not mandatory and I leave it on you whether to resolve or not. Otherwise, as I said above, it meets FA criteria. Great job! -- Frankie _talk 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I capped and full-stopped them as I turned the last two into sentences as well...first one was but I forgot. good catch. thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fredlyfish4[edit]

You mention tetrodotoxin in the lead and once thereafter. Since this chemical is named for this family, and you specifically mention its effects on humans, I think it is worth mentioning both that this chemical is found in this family and that it is named for it.

found and added some general material. yikes, didn't see the naming bit... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of "two small nipple-like structures." Stating it this way could refer to appearance or function, so you should change it to nipple-like in appearance or function or maybe find a better way of stating this.

How 'bout "nipple-shaped"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney is mentioned a few times, so link to it once. Just in case there are people who don't know what you're referring to.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Smooth toadfish grow steadily larger as they grow older" - most fish have indeterminate growth which you should at least link to and maybe specifically state here.

Ahaaa, thanks for that...didn't recall the name. have made a link now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN Red List includes changes in populations as a critical part of its assessment, so include that with "Its large range and abundance"

By that you could simply say "stable population"

good point/added - I altered the emphasis of the next segment to make it less repetitive-sounding.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "shellfish" and "lipid" the first time they are mentioned.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree with the above reviewers that this generally meets FA critera. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sasata[edit]

Will be back with more substantive comments later. Sasata (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the reference formatting needs some work so that it is consistent. Examples only:

authors: "Thieberger, Nick; McGregor, William" vs "Shao, K., Liu, M., Larson, H.,"

authors all separated by semicolons now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

page range format: 277–284 vs. 116–22

all page ranges 2 digits in this situation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what type of citation is #18 (Melbourne's Wildlife)?

an unformatted book. now formatted with fuller info Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

title case or sentence case for journal articles?

all title cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

capitalize first work of subtitle after colon (e.g. #19) or not (#22)?

capped - see preceding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a literature search pulls up several sources that weren't used in the article. Have you checked these: PMID 26443385, PMID 17884259, doi:10.1016/S0272-7714(03)00073-8, doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2012.09.013, doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2014.09.011

all added now...nice finds Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoohoo, @Sasata:.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The breeding habits of estuarine tetraodonidae" last two words are jargon (estuarine is linked in next section)

anglicised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

three uses of “corresponded/correspond” in two consecutive sentences, should mix it up

yeah, one down...bit hard that one... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

should "Accidental Death" be capitalized?

pondered that....'murder' and 'manslaughter' aren't..so I guess not (forgot I'd left them capped :P) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Aside from these minor details, the article reads well and I think it meets the featured article criteria. (I made some copyedits and added links here) Sasata (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx! NB: changes are fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK[edit]

All images are CC or "PD-own work" with sufficient source and author information - OK.
Map includes source information for data - OK.
Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
File:Tetractenos glaber.JPG - no EXIF-data, but uploaded by a longtime contributor with credible "own work" claim - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

One reservation I had about the article at GAC which I did not mention was the discussion of the historical poisoning cases. I think the stories are fascinating, and potentially the sort of thing which would be picked up in the literature (popular or scholarly) on the fish, but I wonder whether you have come across any more recent sources which mention these old events? That would put my mind at ease...

there were a couple that mentioned them in passing, which is how I went looking for them in the first place. Will re-check which... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great if you could throw in those citations; you could introduce it with something like (off the top of my head, I'm sure you can make it more elegant) "Several cases of poisoning were recorded in the 19th century.[cites to recent peer reviewed literature]"- the current approach comes across as a tiny bit OR-y; it's borderline archival research. (Again, I'm bringing this up here rather than at GAC because I think it's only a very small issue.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found it (again). It's on page 61 of this. The author is one of the main fish scientists too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments on that section:

Is it worth breaking the Scott quote out into a blockquote? I think it would read better and help break up that long paragraph.

Yeah I think that reads better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jury or Jury?

whoops! fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Accidental Death and not simply accidental death?

I was deliberating about whether capped or uncapped and could have sworn I'd uncapped them before...anyway..done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Warnings about toadfish were subsequently issued", it makes it sound like this is related in some way to the previous event. Is this what you want to imply? The long gap between the sources suggests that there is unlikely to be a relationship.

Yes - warnings were issued after the hobart case, according to a latter source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! The fact that this more recent (though still not hardly current!) source mentions the Hobart case limits my OR worries. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A great article overall, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.