Talk:Desert pupfish/GA1

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

Reviewer: Yzx (talk · contribs) 17:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one. Comments to follow. -- Yzx (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * First of all, this article should be at desert pupfish. General Wikipedia practice is to put fish articles at the common name in sentence case
 * Done


 * Both File:Male female mecularius.jpg and File:Male macularius.jpg are marked as copyrighted images at their sources. Thus neither can be used on Wikipedia; you'll need to find images with free licenses. There are some here
 * -File:Male female mecularius.jpg was uploaded with permission from the owner
 * If this is so, then you must log the permission for using the image with OTRS. You'll find instructions for doing so at COPYREQ. -- Yzx (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * -Requested
 * -File:Male macularius.jpg was uploaded to encylopedia of life link under license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported), which is apparently acceptable to be uploaded to the commons
 * Non-commercial (NC) images are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. See Image_use_policy. -- Yzx (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * -Noted.


 * The IUCN status needs to be cited, and in any case the species doesn't seem to have been evaluated by the IUCN. It's not listed on the IUCN website
 * -Status is detailed in 1994 IUCN Redlist of Threatened Animals, but it does not show up on their current website. Is it acceptable to cite the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakerb4379 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The introduction does not adequately summarize the article; there's no mention of the fish's appearance or behavior, for example
 * teleost is jargony for the intro, I'd replace it with something like "bony fish" or "freshwater fish"
 * -Done


 * delta and basin should be linked
 * -Done, in the intro paragraph


 * There are natural populations of this fish remaining in California and Mexico, however, populations have been introduced to several areas and some fish are kept in private ponds and aquaria. -- this sentence should be integrated with the previous paragraph about range
 * The information about ponds/aquaria, and about the population decline since the 1900s needs to also be stated in the body of the article and cited
 * "subspecies" should be linked
 * C. eremus and C. arcuatus should be linked at their first occurrences
 * -Done.


 * the inconsistencies between haplotype frequency are highly significant and suggest species-divergence of about 100,000 years -- this is very technical language and should be rephrased to be more reader-friendly
 * Recently, the three subspecies have been classified as three distinct species: the desert pupfish (C. macularius), the Sonoyta (Quitobaquito) pupfish (C. eremus), and the Santa Cruz (Money Spring) pupfish (C. arcuatus) -- this sentence should come after the information about the mitochondrial DNA study, since it is a consequence of the study
 * Since this is a scientific article, all measurements should be given in metric units, with Imperial conversion in parentheses
 * have more vivid markings, specifically during breeding seasons -- the "specifically" is unnecessary, unless you mean "especially"
 * -I do, and done.


 * caudal peduncle should be linked
 * -Done


 * The profile of the desert pupfish is smoothly rounded -- I assume you mean the dorsal profile?
 * -Yes. Can you tell I'm new to fish? Done.


 * tricuspid should be linked or explained
 * -Done


 * The distribution map should specify that it's the US distribution, since it excludes Mexico
 * -Done


 * The map caption shouldn't have C. macularius bolded
 * -Done


 * salinity, oxygen, substrate, benthic, and algae should be linked
 * -Done


 * however, the desert pupfish has a smaller distribution than previously considered. -- awkward phrasing
 * extant should be linked
 * -Done


 * omnivore should be linked
 * -Done


 * What is a "shallow zone"? Does this just mean shallow water or is it something more specific?
 * -Simply shallow water. Clarified.


 * they will move out of the shallows during the day when water temperatures may rise to 36°C or higher -- is the temperature change the environmental cue for this behavior?
 * Rate of surface foraging -- should be "the rate"
 * invertebrate, crustacean, larva, snail, and detritus should be linked
 * intraspecies eggs and young -- "eggs and young of its own species" would be more reader-friendly
 * Pupfish will feed somewhat heavily on nektonic organisms, going so far as to suppress or even eliminate local populations of mosquitoes. In the absence of mosquito prey, pupfish will consume benthic chironomid midges both from substrate and from midwater when midges attempt to come to the surface. -- there's some context missing here; how does this information relate to the previous sentences?
 * Exposed eggs are typically and readily eaten by other pupfish if not concealed by the bearer -- is the "bearer" the female? Also, does "other pupfish" refer to this species or another one?
 * fertilized and olfactory should be linked
 * This behavior has been suggested as an analogue to the rejection of alien eggs by avian victims of nest parasitism -- how is it analogous? In function? In mechanism?
 * model for the maximization of filial fitness -- this needs better, less technical explanation
 * The "motor patterns" section looks to contain a combination of male-female, male-male, and non-reproductive (?) behaviors; the entire section needs to be broken up, turned into prose, and each behavior put into the proper context
 * Content in the "breeding" and "reproduction" sections should be swapped. Information about spawning season and territoriality should come first (and be labeled "reproduction"), and spawning behavior should come after (and be labeled "breeding" or "spawning")
 * Only mammals undergo oestrus; I think you mean "females out of breeding condition"
 * larger females spawning more than smaller females -- more eggs or more often?
 * The breeding season of the desert pupfish typically occurs during early spring and into winter -- so it lasts most of the year then?
 * Breeding behavior includes both territorial arena-breeding (high aggression) and consort-pair breeding (low aggression). -- this needs more explanation
 * primary productivity should be linked
 * defend individual territories that are typically less than 1 meter deep -- does this mean "in water less than 1 meter deep"?
 * The "extreme conditions" section should be integrated with "Habitat and distribution"
 * It has been noted that the desert pupfish are more abundant in environments with high vegetative cover, pH, and salinity, and low dissolved oxygen and sediment factors, suggesting that living in extreme conditions allows them to survive in environments that are hostile to invasive or nonnative fishes -- the second half of this sentence doesn't follow logically from the first, nor does "living in extreme conditions" proceed logically to "allows them to survive in environments that are hostile"
 * Recommend that the "management factors" section be renamed to "conservation"
 * Listed as endangered in 1986 -- by whom?
 * physical changes in water quality -- what does this mean?
 * Any examples of the invasive species that are of concern?
 * The information about management is very vague. Who did the conservation? Where? When? What were the results?
 * The "see also" section shouldn't include terms already linked in the article (like Cyprinodon), nor categories
 * Authors in references are inconsistently formatted
 * ref 1 and ref 9 don't give enough information so that someone else can locate the reference
 * ref 13 and ref 15 don't include enough information about the websites, and should also have date retrieved

There's much good information here, but the organization and prose can be improved, and there could be many more wikilinks. The main content issue is the unorganized list of behaviors. -- Yzx (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am participating in an article review as part of an undergraduate course. Are all of the motor patterns from a single source, reference number 20? I am not sure if this is an issue, but is there a way to make this obvious other than just having one reference at the end of the list? I know that user Yzx would like to see more articles linked in this article; perhaps the motor pattern section could link to "Animal locomotion," which discusses some of the physics of swimming and has a section on locomotion energetics. I changed the first sentence of the motor pattern section with the word "movement" now linking to "Animal locomotion." Feel free to change this if you think there is a better place for it.

I am unsure if anyone is interested in adding more information to the article, but I suggest looking at "Condition status of the endangered desert pupfish, Cyprinodon macularius Baird and Girard, 1853, in the Lower Colorado River Basin (Mexico)" by Ruiz-Campos, G. (2013) and "Distribution, habitat, and conservation status of desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) in the Lower Colorado River Basin, Mexico" by Varela-Romero, A. (2002)

Also, I am not nominating this article for good article status, I have already been notified about the nomination back log. I have not nominated any articles yet and do not plan to do so in the future.

Amruthapk (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

reply
Please do not nominate this for GA status. If this is for the wikipedia assignment 9, read the new guidelines as sent out by the course TAs. You are making unnecessary work for the GA reviewers (i.e. several months worth), and you should consider revoking your previous nominations. Bakerb4379 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Response
Hello Bakerb4379, please see my comment above. I know about the backlog and I have no nominations to revoke. Thanks. Amruthapk (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing statement
It's been almost three weeks since the article was nominated for GA and I've yet to see substantial progress made towards addressing its issues, so thus I must fail the nomination. The main editors are welcome to renominate the article for GA once improvements are made and they are prepared to invest time into addressing reviewer concerns. -- Yzx (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)