Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pallid sturgeon

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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [1].

---

Pallid sturgeon

Nominator(s): MONGO

This article has been peer reviewed (Wikipedia:Peer review/Pallid sturgeon/archive1) and all concerns there have been met. Interested in hearing from others as to what else is needed to get this article to FA level.MONGO 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

• Image:Pallid.jpg - missing author (just put the parent government organization, if no individual is credited)

  Got that...it was PD image from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, per source link.

• All other images look good, although for accessibility and uniformity I would make sure all images are set to size=thumb to allow user preferences to decide image sizes; right now the images are irregularly sized and it's not the best presentation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  Will take the image px parameter to default...thanks for reminding me.--MONGO 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  Somebody beat me to it!--MONGO 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Query Hi Mongo,

• Did Pallid sturgeon evolve in the cretaceous or did the Sturgeon family?

  The sturgeon family did apparently...but the pallid has changed little since. I adjusted the intro and need to do the same to the article itself I think.

• Re "pallid sturgeons are one of the only federally listed endangered fish species in the Missouri and Mississippi River systems." Is that one of the few or the only? ϢereSpielChequers 17:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  It is one of the "few"...and was the first listed fish species...will adjust.--MONGO 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Further thoughts

• You've not mentioned any other predator except man. It wouldn't surprise me if full grown adults have no known predators and different stages in the lifecycle encounter just about every predator on the river, but if your sources cover this I think it would be nice to put something in the gap.

• Will adjust...as is probably true for all fish species, during their early life, they are probably easy prey for a plethora of species and circumstances.--MONGO 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

:*I didn't understand the bit about hybridisation and DNA. If the "hybrids" have identical DNA to one species and not the other then they aren't hybrids, just a variant of one species. Was this a summation of two scientific studies that contradict each other, or was the DNA study on DNA that are inherited by gender (e.g. a mitochondrial test for the female line only)? If so it would be worth mentioning that hybridisation is always male of x species with female of Y. ϢereSpielChequers 00:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the research is still vague in this matter...what I understood it to mean is that when pallids and shovelnose hybridize, the offspring are shovelnose based on the DNA collected. I will try to adjust the wording after i think and read about this matter some more. I also need to see if they even know whether we are dealing with pallid roe being fertilized by shovelnose or vice versa.--MONGO 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Having read the study I've made a few tweaks, it seemed easier to make them in the article than list them here; hope you like them, if not, well its a Wiki! Unfortunately I can't tell from the bit about "conversely the companion results" whether both studies were using mitochondrial DNA or just the other one. But I think it was important to move away from identical as that could be interpreted as implying either a one off event or a very limited genetic pool (both of which may be true for a rare species, but neither was stated in that source). ϢereSpielChequers 14:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me...thanks for the assistance and the comments.--MONGO 00:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Support All my major concerns have been addressed, as with any species predation would be nice to mention if someone publishes research on it, but I don't think that is necessary for FA status. This article is an interesting read and has been a pleasure to review (and it reminds me of an enjoyable visit to that part of the world). ϢereSpielChequers 14:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...your review and article contributions are much appreciated.--MONGO 12:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In the "Prior to the construction of dams ..." paragraph, I'm not sure if this should be worded in the past or present tense. The first sentence mentioning what happened before the dams should definitely be past tense, but not sure about the rest. I tried adjusting it but not sure if it's right. I think what you had with use of the word "would" was a conditional sentence, which I'm not sure works well here, or at least the intended meaning is not clear to me.
• What is the importance or relevance of "rocky or hard surfaces" for depositing eggs? Do they deposit the eggs on the surfaces, behind them, or what? maybe this can be clarified, by saying something like "rocky or hard surfaces where they deposit hundreds ..." or some other wording to connect the two parts of this sentence.
• The second paragraph of the last section, "In Nebraska, a small number of pallid sturgeons have been captured ..." seems a bit long. Can this be split into two paragraphs?

Aside from these specific comments, the references are all reliable, with use of some scholarly sources and other good sources, and think the article is very informative. I may think of more comments later. --Aude (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Will address all of these points in a day or two...thanks for the suggestions.--MONGO 04:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  That's fine. I'm not sure my changes to the article were improvements, so feel free to make any adjustments needed. --Aude (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  I have done some copyedits and adjusted the tense, re-adding "would", which I think is correct. Please make any adjustments needed. --Aude (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  That looks good to me...thanks.--MONGO 12:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The article looks good now, and I believe it meets all the FA criteria. --Aude (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  Much thanks for adjustments and comments.--MONGO 19:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing image source

• The source link for the image Image:Juvenilepallid.jpg doesn't seem to be correct. William Avery (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for noticing that...I added the correct source now.--MONGO 00:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Newspaper titles should be in italics.
• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as USGS
• What makes http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Scaphirhynchus+albus a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Will address all of these points in a day or two...thanks for the suggestions.--MONGO 04:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC) In process...already updated ref mentioned ot more valid one...the formatting of many of the older refs is no longer in the same citation template style as is now used, so will adjust over next few days.--MONGO 05:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Have made the adjustments you have suggested...I went and updated all the cite templates to newer formats. Some of the templates were from older formats and now we have more uniformity. Thanks for taking the time to comment.--MONGO 00:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• No naked decimal points. Put in leading zeros. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Appears to have been taken care of now...[2]...thanks for the reminder.--MONGO 12:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Henry8787:

• Prose is on the poor side. Text needs to be cleaned up and simplified. I've made a few copyedits myself to illustrate this, but there's plenty more where that came from. An example I can't fix is "Descended from the Acipenseridae (Sturgeon) family of fish that originated during the Cretaceous period 70 million years ago, the pallid sturgeon has remained relatively unchanged since." because I'm not really sure what's that's supposed to mean. Here's another, from the taxonomy and etymology section: "DNA sampling of shovelnose sturgeon taken from the same three locations showed that the shovelnose were genetically one population; Whilst the physiologically identified pallid/shovelnose hybrids from the Atchafalaya River showed genetic distinction from pallid sturgeons, but on the genetic markers assessed were genetically indistinguishable from shovelnose."
• A range map would be nice. The lead section's description of the range is too brief, and I eventually figured it out from the "distribution" section further in the article, but a range map in the taxobox would illustrate it nicely at a glance.
• There are comments about the fish being tasty and fun to catch in the lead section, but nothing about interactions with humans outside of conservation efforts. Historically, was this a widely sought-after fish? Bycatch? Was it ever notable for the taste of its flesh?
• The lead section seems too heavily weighted toward its status as an endangered species. While this is very important, the lead section should also be used as a thumbnail of the entire article, so if a reader just reads the first few paragraphs of the article and then switches to something else, they's leave with a decent understanding of the article's subject. In this case, they would leave with the idea that it is endangered and there are efforts being made to conserve it, It lives somewhere in the Mississippi river region, it's related to another similar-appearing species of sturgeon, it's large and can live 100 years, it's ugly, and it tastes good. Does this effectively summarize the article?
• The physical description section seems to have too heavy an emphasis on comparing the pallid sturgeon to the shovelnose sturgeon. Since I don't know what a shovelnose sturgeon looks like, I'd have to refer to the article (which, by the way, isn't wikilinked nearby). Unfortunately, that article, once found, doesn't really paint a good picture. Fortunately, both articles have very nice photographs, but can the text be edited out a bit to paint a better picture with words?
• The reproduction and life cycle section is very nice. I have a bit of a problem with how verb tenses seem to switch back and forth between present and past tense, though.
• I hate to be a citation nazi, but I'm finding too many assertions that make me think "who says that anglers found catching this fish rewarding", and "who attribited changes in hybridization rates to changes in the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers?". I'm not going to litter the article with {{fact}} tags and statements that are unlikely to be questioned obviously don't need any, but there are too many examples of obviously researched items that aren't attributed to their source.
• Generally, not ready for FA yet.
• I'll post more feedback if desired. Henry8787 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll look into some of your suggestions. The article actually rates pretty high as far as readability goes according to the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test and others. I haven't worked on the Shovelnose sturgeon article and probably won't since I am more interested in endangered species overall. But since the shovelnose is fairly common and they are so similar, it seemed, especially since that is what a lot of references do, to compare the two. The other issue due to their similarities are that pallids, which are endangered species and it is illegal to keep them if caught, need to be easily identified so that they can be released and anglers can report their findings to various agencies. There is almost no information aside from what I found about the roe occasionally being used for caviar in the past, regarding whether the species was sought after primarily because it tasted good or more so due to it's huge size. I surely would have loved to have a good range map, but lack the toolskills and software to develop one on my own...the range of the species is congruent with the Mississippi and then up the Missouri River systems, extending little in the upper Mississippi, the Platte and the Yellowstone Rivers as well. I try to keep wikilinks from being too common and the MOS expects that except in cases where articles are real expanisve in size, that the only time another Wikipedia article should be linked to is in the first occurance in which it is found in another article.--MONGO 03:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Back...found and added a range map to the taxobox...hope that helps.--MONGO 04:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Very nice. Henry8787 (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Will try and address other areas in next few days...thank you for the copyediting and time you have spent commenting.--MONGO 04:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Readability isn't so much a factor in my comment as how well the prose flows. I agree, the article doesn't have excessive jargon and big words meant to impress the reader with the author's amazing mastery of the English language. However, if the average reader (read as A to B high school student) reader can't read through the article without being hung up on the way it's written (such as having to stop and re-read a sentence because they didn't quite understand it the first time), then the article needs improvement to meet the standard of "brilliant prose", even though they are able to comprehend all of the words involved. That was what I meant about the prose being lacking. Henry8787 (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I have tried clearing up the taxonomy section, as the material explaining the hybrids seemed slightly confusing to the lay reader such as myself. I have also done some general copyediting. Are there other sections in particular that seem difficult to read? --Aude (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but a majority of the article seems to have pretty major copyediting issues. I'll use the taxonomy section to illustrate because it's relatively brief. The first paragraph has four sentences, each of which pretty much have nothing to do with each other. Paragraph 2 has 5 sentences, which are all related to the same topic, except that the third sentence seems to contradict the first, or at least make me wonder why you're telling me that all the species are different, then turn around to tell me that the living specimens found in a certain section of the river are all the same. The grammar, style, and flow make me feel that each of the 5 sentences in that paragraph were written by different people at different times. There is random switching between active voice and passive voice, and an arbitrary semicolon inappropriately used instead of a period. The third paragraph seems like it was a fragment left over from something else, but left in because the information is useful (which it certainly is, don't get me wrong). The article covers a great topic, one that has hooked my interest, but it can use some serious polishing to get it to shine to the degree it should before it appears on Wikipedia's main page. Henry8787 (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  I want the article to be as good as I can make it...I am considering adding a new section on the DNA discussion and removing that from the Taxonomy section. I have adjusted the first paragraph in the Taxonomy section based on your comments and those made by another commentator.--MONGO 14:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  I have created a new section which will detail the DNA issues...it will be a few days before I get this section straightened out.--MONGO 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

More comments from Henry8787

• In the taxonomy section, the "The DNA showed that the southern populations have been reproductively isolated but are physically indistinguishable, aside from size, with the northern Missouri River individuals being much larger.[9]" sentence seems awkwardly stated. Two populations that are physically indistinguishable, except that one of them is much larger than the other? That "physically indistinguishbale" seems to be the wrong phrase to use here, but when I tried to clarify what the original source (#9) said so I could fix it myself, (it's the "Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation" (pdf). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) reference), I found that the document is 120 pages long. Any chance of obtaining page numbers in that citation? That's a lot of searching.
• In the life cycle section, including the caption of the photograph of "immature larva" of the fish (redundant wording, perhaps), the article hints of physical differences in the fish during different stages of its life cycle, such as "as the larvae developed tails...". Please describe the physical changes that occur to the fish during its development from embryo to mature adult. Henry8787 (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• I did some copyediting and word changes in the DNA studies section [3], but somebody partially reverted my edits, leaving a problem with pronouns that don't agree in the first two sentences of that section. That should be cleaned up, since it's doubtful that the fish are comparing their own DNA samples.
• In the physical description section, I see what I assume is a description of the average size of the fish, 30-60 inches, and a maximum weight (85 lbs). Any information on an average weight or a maximum size? Would a 60-inch fish weigh 85 pounds? This should be clarified. Henry8787 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'll look around and see what I can find about average weight. I didn't want to start specifying all the different groups which have researched the species, its DNA and other issues since once we start that, we're mentioning the names of the specific scientists and others and it kind of gets endless and we lose touch with the main subject matter which is the species. Your copyediting has been most appreciated, just so you know that.--MONGO 22:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It's important to state the obvious in well written articles, particularly in the lead. Is there an especially good reason not to say that "The pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) is an endangered species of sturgeon endemic to the waters..."? The sturgeon family isn't even linked until the second paragraph, which feels weird for an article about a sturgeon species.

  I moved the discussion about sturgeon up to the top into paragragh so this problem is solved I think.--MONGO 14:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I feel like the origin of the name should also be part of the lead. It's another basic bit of obvious info that needs stating for beginners to the subject early on. Any objection?

  Been looking at this but not sure how to make it fit in better.--MONGO 14:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'll take a hack at it, and if it doesn't seem to fit, it isn't that far in to the meat of the article. Steven Walling (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• In Physical characteristics, I would say that the description of sturgeon (which I have seen up close and personal before) as "shark-like" is extremely subjective. Can we change it to "They have a streamlined appearance, as with many sturgeon species."?

  I took that out since it was not a great comparison overall.--MONGO 16:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'd personally like to see more detail about their feeding habits (what exactly do they eat as bottom feeders?)

  I added more details as to their dietary tendencies. That section looks better now with the expansion.--MONGO 16:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Overall, seems to meet FA standards. Nice work! Steven Walling (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you...I will address your comments over the next few days.--MONGO 04:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking the time to review this article.--MONGO 16:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the thorough response. I'm now definitely comfortable seeing this promoted. Congrats again on the good work, Steven Walling (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by jimfbleak I like the article but found the second para of lead a bit choppy. also

• Descended from the Acipenseridae (Sturgeon) family of fish that originated during the Cretaceous period "sturgeon" shouldn't be capped, but this clause doesn't make sense anyway. How can it be descended from an entire extant family of which it is a member? Presumably you mean it is descended from an ancestral Cretaceous sturgeon, in which case please give fossil details.

  I went and simply changed that to reflect that it is a member of the sturgeon family. I decapitalized the bluelinked word sturgeon.--MONGO 14:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Taxonomy - doesn't actually mention that it is a member of the sturgeon family, let alone discuss relationships in the family. I would have thought it was at least worth mentioning the Pseudoscaphirhynchus genus as the only other group in the subfamily, and the South Asian counterpart of Scaphirhynchus jimfbleak (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  Working on this...I think I have the first paragrapgh in the taxonomy section reworded appropriately now.--MONGO 14:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Concerns have been addressed jimfbleak (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Article read well for me and appears to cover everything a species article should cover. Good job! --mav (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Status? Work in progress tag on the DNA studies section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  Sandy...in progress tag is now taken down...that section is now meeting WP:SS.--MONGO 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lean support Clean article. Doesn't seem to have any major problems. Some concerns above, and interested in finding out what the "work in progress" is. However, I know enough to lean towards a support. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  Work in progress now completed.--MONGO 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. It would be unusual for this article to be promoted with the "work in progress" tag (which I have been waiting to be addressed before commenting). I have been bold and tweaked the section in question [4] and I think it is OK. Of course, I don't know what is going to be added. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

  I just had to get some time to reevaluate the DNA section...linked articles provide more details and the section now meets WP:SS.--MONGO 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral per SandyGeorgia's comments below. Few changes have been made since her complaint was registered, so I don't dare support. I fear I will be blamed for copy editing your article. I hope you don't mind my copy edits, although I don't think I am responsible for all her complaints! But I don't dare risk it.

The situation you describe regarding the Pallid sturgeon is quite interesting, and also relates to the situation of many species of fish. An insightful article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mind your edits in the least. All articles on Wikipedia are, even FA's, works in progress. I just wanted the species to be documented for the reasons listed, including that it is big, it is rare, it has an ancient lineage, that it was the first fish species listed as endangered in the Missouri River basin and the the reasons why it is believed to be endangered and the efforts to try and stop it from becoming extinct. I didn't expand too greatly on the hybrid issues (as you brought up on my talk page) since I think, from all the details I am reading, that the jury is still out as to whether the hybrids indicate that pallds and shovelnose sturgeons are simply varients of the same species...DNA indicates that the hybrids are almost identical to shovelnose, but distinct from pallids...it is not known yet whether the hybrids have the ability to reproduce...if you care to read more, check out page 479 in this online accessible pdf....[5]..I might add a wee bit more about hybrids, especially the part I just touched on.--MONGO 22:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  I thought this was close last night when I read through, but now I'm seeing copyedit and prose issues.

  • "The Pallid sturgeon take a long time to mature ... " Long time?
  • To better protect pallid sturgeons from extinction, research on its DNA and that of other closely related species was conduced to assess differences within various populations of pallid sturgeon
  • ... that may permit recreation of suitable habitats without reducing the Serivice's ability to protect people ...

• I am not responsible for the complaints you make, although I am sure I am being blamed! I tried to edit well, but apparently I dragged this article down into the pits. Sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Mongo, can you please run through again; there has been some deterioration, so please check and ping me when you've made corrections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  I see GrahamColm went through; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Caption to this photo says the beast was hatchery raised. Unsourced and unbelievable. Source says "Linda Vannest and Crystal Hudson release an adult pallid sturgeon back into the Yellowstone River in North Dakota". I removed the hatchery bit; maybe they used an adult for spawning, but did they actually raise it? NVO (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying that...I missed it...and that is correct that any pallids released from hathcerys were ones that were captured for spawning purposes and other reason...some of these are pretty large...[6], but they are not hatchery raised as you pointed out.--MONGO 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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