Talk:Fishing cat

IUCN status of Fishing cat

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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 I've seen a blog referring to the outdated status.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)

GA Review

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Stop assuming and look at the article history. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fishing cat/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 17:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheTechnician27 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose flows in a natural, understandable way with no ostensible spelling mistakes. Any grammatical mistakes found (I corrected most or all of them) were due to an absence of commas, but these were not distracting and did not hinder comprehensibility. Lead adequately summarizes the points made in the article. The overall layout comports with the manual of style. MOS:WHATPLACE is technically violated with the words 'sometimes' and 'often', but these are not used in ways that would hamper understanding or where robust statistical information could be substituted/would be important.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Article contains a references section, and all citations are stylistically consistent and well-formatted and afford plenty of information to a reader hoping to track these sources down. Inline citations are used consistently (including in captions when necessary), and all of the sources appear reliable – either being articles in peer-reviewed academic journals or books by credible publishers. Because this is the most extensive part of the review, original research and copyvio evaluations will be provided per-section below:

   Lead: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Taxonomy: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Characteristics: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): The article states "The fishing cat is the largest cat of the Prionailurus" (and this seems true), but I don't see that in the text cited. I placed a '?' here instead of a fail because it's entirely possible I'm missing something. Page wasn't properly noted in the citation, but per Bhagya (and can be independently verified shortly), this is in the source.

   I think the editor who added the text analyzed the sizes of cats in the genus and found the fishing cat to be the largest. I don't see where the source says that outright, so I think I'll be replacing it.

   Couldn't find an appropriate source stating this, so I removed it

   Distribution and habitat: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Behaviour and ecology: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): Rewrote an excerpt which rose to the level of close paraphrasing but did not rise to the level of copyvio; nonetheless, that's fixed now. The '?' is for the excerpt "sometimes diving into the water to catch prey further from the banks", as I did not see that in sections 1.2 or 5.4. Again, though, this is likely just me not being able to be thorough enough to read the entire thesis and therefore missing something. (As we only cite it one time, page numbers could be very useful here). Don't know how I missed this in the WCoW citation the first time I read it.

   Judging from this edit, the ref should be the WCoW one. I'm not at all sure of when the changing of references occurred.

   Threats: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): "In one instance, between 2012 and 2015, poachers were arrested after slaying 31% of radio-collared animals in Thailand." I can see that this is referencing the 5/16ths figure from page 9, but I don't see anything about the poachers being arrested. (fixed) Moreover, I don't see what in this source attests to "They are also hunted for their meat, which is used for traditional causes." (in source, but I rewrote excerpt for clarity)

   Conservation: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article appears to cover the major aspects of the subject without straying into unnecessary detail. Its diet, behavior, habitat, appearance, distribution, health, reproductive cycle, manmade threats, conservation efforts, taxonomical status, and phylogeny (which I think constitute all of the major topics) are all covered and in enough detail to give the reader a good introductory understanding of each of them while not straying into detail which is extraneous for an encyclopedia. Although the list of locations in 'Distribution and habitat' seems somewhat exhaustive, this is offset by the fact that the fishing cat is listed as vulnerable and has been subject to habitat loss, meaning where it is at any given time is highly relevant. The points that grungaloo quickfailed this article on in March seem to have been addressed at least enough to meet 3(a). In all likelihood, this doesn't rise to the level of thorough coverage required for a FAR, but for a GAR, this seems sufficient.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Taxonomy, characteristics, distribution, and behavior sections should not be prone to POV and, as expected, showed no obvious signs of it from the perspective of a non-expert. Threats and conservation sections which could be prone to POV editing are handled with care, stating the facts dispassionately, without attempting to soapbox, sticking to neutral academic sources, and taking up an appropriate portion of the article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Editing appears amicable, dominated by a couple major editors, most prominently Wolverine XI and BhagyaMani. Unambiguous pass.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image licensure seems fine, and the article has several high-quality images of the subject as well as a very useful distribution map. Given this is the fishing cat, I think it would be ideal to have an image of it in the water if possible, but because I think most readers can picture a cat swimming, I would see this more as a barrier for FA status than for GA. The captions are suitable and concise. The only reason this fails 6(b) right now is simply because none of the images have alt text which is crucial for visually impaired readers.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Wolverine XI: @BhagyaMani: Okay, the review is done, and all six criteria are met. The overall pass/fail is still on hold while I see if Grungaloo has any objections, but I'll be updating that to a pass at 00:00 UTC on 17 October or immediately if Grungaloo responds and sees no issue. If they do take issue with it, then we can sort that out from there, but I think you've sufficiently remedied the cause of the previous quickfail. I think you both have every right to claim credit for this GA on your pages once everything goes through. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Pocock 1939

Re: verification of fishing cat as largest Prionailurus. Archive.org is down, but my local copy covers the fishing cat on pages 281-284. It doesn't mention being a second edition. It doesn't explicitly say that the fishing cat is the largest Prionailurus. It says it is larger than P. bengalensis and elsewhere says P. rubiginosus is smaller than P. bengalensis (p276). So Pocock considers it the larger of the three Indian Prionailurus cats.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That's right : there is no mention of second edition on the title page. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Re size: Pocock wrote on page 266 under the heading Key to the Three Species Based on External Characters. about viverrinus: ... size, the largest of the genus. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: Sounds good to me. As the IA is down, I've taken you at your word that this is said on page 266. (And yes, this is to my understanding the second edition; we have the first on Wikisource, published in the late 1800s). If this turns out to be some sort of misunderstanding once the IA is back up, this would be trivial to correct, but I trust you on this enough to give it a pass in the review. Besides, I think at this point I've made up my mind to give Grungaloo a week to respond given they previously quick-failed a fairly similar version of the article (I think it's sufficiently different), so the IA should be back by then. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What you call the first edition was NOT written by Pocock but by Blanford. So Pocock's book with the same title is indeed his first and only edition. Pocock's volume 2 was published a few years later. BhagyaMani (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm page 266 for the statement ... size, the largest of the genus.

Agree that Blandford's and Pocock's books, despite the similar titles, are separate works rather than different editions of the same work.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jts1882: What does the whole sentence say? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's part of a key:

a. Tail over half the length of the head and body and over twice the length of the hind foot.

[b and b' distiguishing bengalensis and rubiginosus]

a' Tail less than half the length of the head and body and less than twice the length of the hind foot; size, the largest of the genus ... viverrinus Bennett, p 281.

 —  Jts1882 | talk  12:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, hopefully it doesn't take too long for the internet archive to be up and running once again. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

They are saying days rather than longer. I hadn't realised how often I use that site.  —  Jts1882 | talk  19:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)