Talk:Bowfin/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this good-looking and longstanding GAN on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments
Morphology:

Dark reticulations: are these normally in young fish? ✅

Please wikilink to eyespot (mimicry). ✅

A diagram of the fish from the side showing the distinctive features mentioned in the text would be desirable. Not a GA requirement. ✅

Fishes similar in appearance:

this gets very high prominence (and is rather long, I wonder if WP:UNDUE. Perhaps this material should be shorter, with possibly a footnote (you could use and then a  for this.)  ✅ Trimmed.

Physiology:

Please link hypoxia, as in lead. ✅

Swim bladder lung: I thought a swim bladder was an alternative to a lung? Then you say "gas bladder" as well, followed by parentheses, not nice. This isn't a true lung then? Needs explaining. A diagram would be nice, actually. And, is the feature unique to bowfins? Isn't it found in other primitive fish like the gar? Better mention that.

"They are referred to as physostomes which also includes the bichirs (Polypteridae), the gars (Lepisosteidae), and the lungfishes (Dipnoi).[23]" Not clear what this is doing in the physiology section; it certainly doesn't answer my question about whether the related fish have gas bladders; and I am not objecting to the term "swim bladder" but asking why it's called a lung. Please try again.
 * To clarify: the quoted sentence here fails to make the vital connection between being a physostome and using the swim bladder as a kind of lung, but it is the place in the article where that connection is required. I've rearranged the material to make sense.

Evolution and phylogeny:

I found this section probably correct, but really quite difficult. I'd have found it easier if there was a discussion of hypothesis A, followed/accompanied by cladogram A, then B with cladogram B, etc. I accept the competing hypotheses are quite tricky to describe, but somehow the description at the moment left me floundering. One reason is that different names are used for the same thing, eg Teleostei = teleost fishes = Neopterygii, or so the section seems to say. Another reason is that the paragraph "Based on a mitogenic..." talks about "basal actinopterygians" in 4 major lineages ... which are almost not mentioned again (though it seems that garfish belong to Lepisosteidae = lepisosteids), and worse aren't in the diagrams. So it feels like the reader is getting multiple fragmentary stories. Phrases like "the second major occurrence in the evolution of ray-finned fishes" don't make it easier, either. Anyway, it made my head spin, which isn't good.

BTW the fact they have the intact ParaHox genes reinforces the point in the lead that they're "primitive fishes". Maybe tie these things together. You might even use this to introduce the evo/phylo section, i.e. start the reader off with the idea these are not ordinary teleost bony fish but something old and special. Just a thought.

Also you say garfish are "distantly related", but hypothesis A says they're close... ✅

Distribution, habitat and feeding behavior: ✅

This is an odd combination of sections. Generally it's ok to merge Dist and hab. but behavior as well? Perhaps best separated. The question of introductions could be a subsection of Dist, but doesn't really belong with habitat and certainly not with feeding. It might be better to move the Introductions paragraph to a renamed "Interaction with humans" section, which could then include Uses (sport fishing, aquariums, food, caviar as 4 paras/subsections) and Nuisances (or some such name) (trouble to sports fishing, possible harm from introductions), perhaps.

Images:

In the "Fig 1. Four hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships among ray-finned fishes." (A: not sure why it's Fig 1. ?) the word "Teleost" is printed (B:) "Telsost" 4 times. ✅

Also, (C:) the cladograms would be much nicer as Wikipedia cladograms (see e.g. Crocodilia for what they're like) than buried in a bitmap image.

Distribution in the USA. This is a bit like the old joke about looking for your keys under the streetlight: you're there because that's the only part of the street where you can see... but if the fish occur in Canada, etc, what is needed is a wider distribution map, really. I do understand the problem, but... (actually there's a simpler map you could base a new one on in ref 1 (Wisconsin DNR), it would have to be redrawn.)
 * PS but if the fish occur in Canada, etc, what is needed is a wider distribution map, really. The USGS map includes the extent of their Canadian distribution which is basically around the Great Lakes, and St. Lawrence River basin.  I also tweaked the paragraph to include a more detailed description. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  05:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the map shows the entire global distribution of the bowfin, and (less important) it is unusual in style for this purpose (generally we use just one colour for where a species occurs, unless it's seasonal of course. Further, the caption says "United States" not "Global", so which is it? Please study the Florida Museum of Nat. Hist. map, noting especially the long tongue pointing Northeastwards into Quebec; that doesn't seem to be shown on your map. Please also check the Wisconsin map in Ref 1 as already directed; you may also need to check Canadian sources in case the maps are inaccurate wrt Canadian distribution, and then draw a new map (there are plenty of base maps available on Commons) representing the evidence from all the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The caption for the anchor worm isn't enough for me to understand which bit is fish and which is worm. Are there 2 fish there, or what?


 * As someone who edited this article a bit, I think the phylogeny description should be rewritten. It mostly relies on old sources and it is confusing even to me (a biologist, thus not a phylogenetics specialist). I always hoped to do that but it requires quite a bit of time to peruse the (conflicting, as often phylogenetics is) literature and condense a reasonable "state of the art" from it.-- cyclopia speak! 16:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can make most of the changes requested by the reviewer, but need your collaboration for the phylogeny portion. Will you handle that part so the GA review can be completed?  I hope it's ok with you if I simply add a green checkmark after I make the changes you suggested. --- OK


 * - sorry about the strike throughs. It was a misunderstanding on my part.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  07:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC) --- OK

Questions
, I have a question for you - considering Wiki already has an article on swim bladders, complete with diagrams, and the bowfin article pretty accurately describes how bowfins utilize the gas bladder to breathe, do you really think it's necessary to expand on it further? There is also a Wiki article on physostomes which bowfin are considered because of the pneumatic duct, so again, do you still feel it is important to provide that much detail on physiology? Atsme &#9775;  Consult  03:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC) PS: I had already deleted the term "swim bladder", and for consistency, stuck with "gas bladder". Gas bladder redirects to Swim_bladder. Also, the function of the gas bladder would belong under the physiology section, and so does the reference to physostomes because it classifies them as air breathers via use of a pneumatic duct which is explained in the article just before the classification is made. I don't think we should include that much detail because then we would have to explain those species that breathe air but don't have a pneumatic duct. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  03:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the task of a reviewer is to report truthfully where the article tripped them up, to ensure it doesn't go on to trip up other readers. Therefore, it is almost always necessary to modify places in the text - let's call them trip hazards - which a reviewer has commented on, even if editors thought the text in that place adequate. Therefore it's hardly ever a good idea to argue.
 * Aye, aye, Captain. I just wondered because such detail wasn't requested by the GA reviewer for Alligator gar with respect to their physiology as air breathers.  I'll see what I can do to eliminate the trip hazards you mentioned.  Perhaps with your help this article can go right into the FA que after meeting GA requirements?  That would be wonderful. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, I already fixed the (very minor) bit of problem text. The general rule is that the time to fix something is generally inversely proportional to the square number of words expended on discussing it, plus or minus a few hundred percent. (#hashtag wikimathhumor) Let's get on with fixing the article.


 * To answer your question, the right level of detail here is just enough to help the reader. You can't totally rely on the presence of wikilinks because that would require the reader to read another article (and he'd have to read another six articles to understand that one, ad infinitum). Of course you must not reproduce the level of detail in all the other articles. Your job is to say just enough on physostomes and gas/swim bladders to make the topic of bowfish clear, which frankly it wasn't (either to a general reader, or to one with a biology degree). You need to refer to physostomes in a way that shows your "because..." clause above, which again the sentence didn't, it just hung there vaguely suggesting there ought to be a connection. You are not being asked to write at vast length and detail, just to write briefly, clearly, and to delineate the main aspects of the subject. In a nutshell, put the relevant facts in the relevant places to make your message clear.

Re: the hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships - are Wiki cladograms already available that can be used instead of the bitmapped chart? Atsme &#9775;  Consult  03:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They're surely not here on Wikipedia, and if they're outside, you'll need to be careful with copyright. But the hypotheses represent such small cladogram trees they really won't take long to edit. Please study the one I indicated; you could edit a copy of it in your sandbox or user page.
 * Ok. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  14:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I've glossed over, the physiology section is adequately detailed so far, though, perhaps a diagram of the bowfin's bladder would help visualize things.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated above, that section is now fixed. Please devote energy to the phylogeny section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will try to get phylogeny section ready to go by Wednesday, if not sooner. The very first sentence in that section tells us there are competing hypotheses and debates, and that we should have held off including them.  I'll rewrite it based on the information provided at the following link:, and will validate it with several other sources.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  04:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the map shows the entire global distribution of the bowfin, - good point regarding the caption. I uploaded a similar US Geological Survey map with a different heading, and changed the caption. The USGS map is the most recent (July 2014), most accurate, and easiest to read of all distribution maps. It accurately shows Amia calva distribution, including the fringe distribution in adjacent southern Ontario and Quebec which includes the Great Lakes and drainages of the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain. I also cleaned up the prose to include "adjacent", and added IUCN inline citation. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  15:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking and doing the update. That leaves the anchor worm question and the phylogeny. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank YOU for all the time you've contributed to the GA review, and for helping me make this a better article. I believe in the process, and am convinced it makes Wikipedia better for all of us.  I fixed the phylogeny section, and you will be happy to know it passed the grandkid test for trip hazards.
 * Aw, cute. That's great. Well done all round. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The article may need a check for proper use of written numbers vs list numbers, and plural vs singular references (fish or fishes, bowfin or bowfins, etc.). Atsme &#9775;  Consult  17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)