Talk:Great northern tilefish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Implausible claim[edit]

"The report concluded that the fish were most abundant between 50 and 80 fathoms, at 76 °F (24 °C).[3]"

What part of the ocean is 24 celsius at 50 fathoms ? It makes no sense. Eregli bob (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Taken care of. Prabash.Akmeemana 01:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Cretaceous–Recent[edit]

Thanks for the great article. The taxonbox says "Upper Cretaceous–Recent", that is a remarkably long live span for a single species. Unfortunately, its unsourced. It would be great if this information could also be incorporated into the main text; is there a chance to get some more information about the fossils? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack that sounds wise to do so, but I have an idea; how about we remove the ICUN Rating it saves us work and electron so what do you think, I also wouldn't mind expanding it with reliable sources. Prabash.Akmeemana 11:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not able to find a source stating that there are any fossils known; so I would suggest to remove the time span information. I was not able to find the entry for this species in the IUCN list, could you provide a reference for the IUCN rating? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, Thanks! Prabash.Akmeemana 00:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Great northern tilefish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 04:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I will review this. FunkMonk (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro needs to be a summary of the entire aticle, no info about behaviour and ecology there, for example. No physical description either.
 Done Prabash.Akmeemana 16:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice with metric measurements in parenthesis.
 DonePrabash.Akmeemana 16:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the scientific name instead of the common name some times in the article, this should be consistent.
 Done Prabash.Akmeemana 16:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Prabash.Akmeemana 16:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the specimen in the photo under taxonomy not have a crest on the head?
Hmm, I know its a Northern tilefish but either way Im going to swap the image any thoughts on that? Prabash.Akmeemana 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are distinguished from other members of their large family" That the family is large should belong under taxonomy, not description.
 Done Prabash.Akmeemana 16:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the enough is known about this fish is known to flesh out the article further, but it is ok now for GA.
  • "t was first discovered in 1879, when a cod trawler caught some by chance while working off of the coast of Massachusetts" This should also be mentioned in the article itself. There should not e any info in the lead not found in the article.
 Done Prabash.Akmeemana 16:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fish spawn during the early spring to the late fall, from March to November; peak spawning from May to September in Mid-Atlantic regions, due to warmer temperatures, the fish spawn for a shorter period of time, ranging from April to June in South Atlantic." Long sentence could be broken up.
 Done Prabash.Akmeemana 16:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their primary staple is crustaceans, such as crabs, and lobster, they also eat fishes and other benthic organisms near their habitat, they are also known to eat smaller tilefish, proving that the fish possess cannibalistic characteristics." Also too long. Check for other long sentences.
 Done Prabash.Akmeemana 16:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When chased, the tilefish tries to outrun its predators" Wouldn't that rather be "outswim"?
 Done Prabash.Akmeemana 16:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed therefore its  Done Prabash.Akmeemana 16:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Decline in age, size and sexual maturity in great northern tilefish population" What exactly does this mean? Decline in variation of each variable?
 Done it should be "during" not "and", I fixed it up Prabash.Akmeemana 17:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The South Atlantic recent estimates of age and size at maturity were younger and smaller" The size estimates were younger?
 Done Fixed it up. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two sentences seem to be saying the same thing: "Declines in population could negatively affect other organisms in their surrounding environment due to the fact that without tilefish, the burrows underneath the continental shelf will disappear, therefore putting an end to the symbiotic relationship with other organisms that use the tunnels as shelter.[17] Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps are disappearing across the continental shelf, most of their tunnels are vanishing along with the species that inhibit their homes.[18]" FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed duplicate. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again, many improvements overall, but you could still have a longer intro, perhaps two paragraphs long, summarising the entire article, and you should probably use the common name throughout, instead of the scientific name. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to help this reach GA. Give me a few moments to get this fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I've reworked the lede, reverted to title naming, added more sources for fishing and regulation which were not included. Is it better now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a further reading link as well to the High Beam copy of a useful report for the more scholarly and interested reader. Did some more tweaking here and there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot, it certainly looks better. If you know this specis more than I do, is there anything important you think should be added to flesh the article out ? FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, thanks Chris for improving the article I created, for a second I thought I was on my own for the GA review, I will try to flesh it out even more. Prabash.Akmeemana 15:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I requested help for fixing the remaining issues when it seemed you had left Wikipedia. Are you back? FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some slight concerns with the behavior of the species now that I think about it. The species doesn't retreat to its burrow, instead attempting to outswim predators. I'll try and insert that, but many predators also share this trait. I've tried to reflect actual research, like the life span and the age of sexual maturity, but some of this goes into rather technical details suitable for researchers and on the niche subject of sexuality maturity base on size. If you really want an analysis on the sexual maturity and pictures of the female reproductive cells as detailed by age... I suppose I could add it, but the expense would be rather undue and the pictures would likely have issues with NFCC in this case.
  • Currently research is being undertaken about the species, but nothing concrete has been advanced by the sources that I've come across and most of it still contentious or debatable. Especially since Lombardi-Carlson's findings of greater intersex in the Gulf of Mexico which are different than the South Atlantic. Though you have to excuse the lack of definite research because the report given is actually the first study on the more northern population in nearly 30 years. The entire source really draws no definitive conclusion other than some intersex males exist (not really a surprise) and that it is no better than saying a small percentage (around 1-2%) of humans show intersex characteristics as well. The only other assertion that the age of sexual maturity decreased during the high exploitation in the 1980s... which itself is already backed up by the inline sourcing. Given that the material is just a more detailed report I cannot find adequate reason to expand it at this time. If you want to be thorough you will be introducing OR in the process by citing material which is inconclusive. I believe only three years of data exist on the populations age anyways, the maximum age of 46 is reported by Turner in 1986 whereas the maximum age is 25 in 2008, but the variation is also listed is 26 plus or minus 6. Critically speaking these ages are not in doubt itself, but it is the caveat that these are not "domestic fish" and their ages are based on those caught in the wild. The report actually concludes that ages of 30+ will be found in the next decade, simply by changes to catch limits and the passage of time and this does not represent the actual longevity of the species. Already 98% of fish are less than 15 years old, and sexual maturity varies between 5-7 years of age, with a good percentage being immature when caught - a problem because the fish have not yet reproduced at least once. Due to the stress put on the species, the males which already wait a year or two before reproducing (after showing signs of sexual maturity) are maturing before similarly aged females. Females, aged 5-6, may not spawn, but are still sexually mature showing that the reproductive potential is higher with age.
  • I can add some of these details to the article if you want, but this about represents my limitations on the species and advances recent evidence, but not conclusive assertions about the behavior, sexuality and population response to the 1980s overfishing. I'd hate to be misleading about the fish itself, but the amount of conclusive evidence regarding the species is still limited. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screw it, I'm just going to be careful and add a section on it to deal with the matter as neutrally and as plain as I can. No since in waiting for the "adding that information will make it a GA" comment. Broad is broad, but I rather not have this listed as GA when we cannot produce a better coverage than other encyclopedias and the fish database. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I added a new chunk to the Ecology section regarding its age, is that fine? I also need conversion from Celsius to Fahrenheit for the breeding section. Thanks! Prabash.Akmeemana 16:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I kept it as is with the 9 C being the conversion rather than 48-49 F being assumed for accuracy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncertain information is good enough to add, as long as we clarify that it is not necessarily "fact". I will re-read the article once this new round of edits are done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely huge changes now, but I'm about done. I've reformatted, cleaned up the prose and done a lot of tweaks and additions. How does it look now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks very nice. On first sight, there's a sentence lacking a citation under behaviour, and the lead should be lengthened to account for the new text. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • FunkMonk, I expanded the section a lot, is it fine as it is, should there be more improvements on the behavior section? I also added the required reference to blank section. Prabash.Akmeemana 23:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good, now the intro should be expanded so it also summarises the new stuff. There is still also lack of consistency in what name is used throughout, The name in the title should be used. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a pain, but isn't "the tilefish" an acceptable shortening? Or could you point out the problem with the names? With that being said, I'll try and work on the lede, but I don't understand where it is falling short of the criteria at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's no problem, it is more that the scientific name is used some places for no apparent reason (and bolded in the taxobox caption), as well as the alternate common name. Mainly in captions. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is proper and not unusual. The scientific name of many species should be bolded when cited. However I will remove the image caption in the info box per Silky shark. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. How is it now, anything left to fix?ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Now it seems there are several kinds of measurements that could need alternate equivalents throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the last paragraph under characteristics would make more sense under reproduction or behaviour. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the paragraph, but I do not know how do to the conversion templates and I don't think it is a requirement for GA articles let alone FA articles. I'll try an figure it out, but I've never worked with those before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been requested for every article I have ever nominated (FAs as well as GAs), so it seems to be important. I never use templates, just online converters and write them in manually. FunkMonk (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "therefore putting an end to the symbiotic relationship with other organisms that use the tunnels as shelter." This seems like something that should be elaborated on under behaviour.
  • The last paragraph of the article seems to be unfinished.
  • I trimmed off that last piece, it was left over from a move up. I cannot fix the population density matter with the burrows per square kilometer. I am almost out of time to fix this tonight, I got 20-30 minutes left, and I won't be able to fix it for nearly 24 hours after that. If you could fix it or tell me how, that'd be great. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, the article is pretty much done anyway. I'll wait and see if you two can find anything about symbiotic relationships, and then pass it. FunkMonk (talk) 03
    • 37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Will do, I will find the symbiotic relationship with the environment for example, its burrow houses many different creatures providing a shelter and a home, FunkMonk, thank you for all your hard work, I gladly appreaciate you and Chris getting the article I created to GA status. Prabash.Akmeemana 13:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I added the symbiotic relationship. FunkMonk, what do you think? Prabash.Akmeemana 13:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, it has come a long way, and is in quite good shape now. Passed! FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Check-List[edit]

Hi, it is better to reply on the review page itself, so that future editors can see the replies in context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_northern_tilefish/GA1 FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Atlantic Ocean[edit]

I read through this article and it appears to me that the authors got confused by the term "South Atlantic". To me the "South Atlantic" is the water south of the equator between South America and Africa. However in the citations, the term "South Atlantic" means "Southern part of those U.S. waters that extend into the Atlantic Ocean". I have reworked the article to reflect this. It might need tidying up. Martinvl (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Great northern tilefish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_northern_tilefish&oldid=1198575998"