Talk:Alligator gar/Archive 1

Does the sport fishing section seem to have some bias against bowfishing? Natewest 03:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It says that they are near the surface of the water makeing them easy targets for bowfishers, but what happens after that does not even come close to an absolute kill you have to keep hitting and hitting until they are dead so easy target yes easy kill NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theace22 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference 5 goes to a missing article. Just thought I'd point that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hllama (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference 11 (on Moon Lake) says nothing about gar. It's an irrelevant reference. I'm removing it and then adding a citation needed tag since the details of the photo are uncited. Fenevad (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• link

You say that the longest alligator gar fish ever caught was around eight feet long. I have an e-mail from a son showing one caught in 1910 that was over ten feet long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well what we deal with here are official records, otherwise they are just hearsay. I have fished the oxbow lakes and Mississippi river around and south of Vicksburg since I was a small child, and based on what I've seen I have no doubt that this fish can exceed 8ft. But unfortunately that is the largest on record. It irks me a bit that you didn't properly sign your article, because I would be willing to look into this and possibly be willing to add it to this entry in some way if appropriate (but not as an official record), but because your comment is unsigned we cannot contact you to see the image. If you do perchance see this, please respond.Levontaun (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is misleading since it seems to indicate that this fish is somehow ancient. It isn't, it has evolved for as many years as we have and is as modern as we are. This is a common mistake that a lot of people make while referring to species that "look" like something ancient, or have been around for very long. They are only about as primitive as we are :)

Consider it to be a living taxon with many primitive characteristics - a living fossil with relatively few morphological changes from the way it appears in the fossil record. Avoid misinterpreting "primitive". There are variances in its application. AtsmeWills☯ talk 02:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

As discussed already elsewhere, "primitive" is a nonsense concept when dealing with taxa. The editor above is right. --cyclopia^speak! 22:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't be misled by hardcore scientific terminology that is only decipherable by scientists, and does not follow WP:NOTEVERYTHING which basically advises editors to keep it understandable for the average Wiki reader. Following is an excerpt with a link to a reliable source with regards to application of the term "primitive fishes" when dealing with documentation to be accessed by the general public:

Fish Physiology: Primitive Fishes: Primitive Fishes
"Primitive fishes" is a loose denomination that is typically used to describe species from taxonomic groups which appeared in vertebrate evolution earlier than the modern elasmobranchs and the teleosts. In this context, the term "primitive" is synonymous with the more scientifically correct "plesiomorphic", which indicates the possession of primitive morphological characters, hence characters that occured earlier in the fossil record than those by which dominant modern groups are defined. In most cases, primitive fishes are the extant remnants of taxa that dominated periods of the fossil record but comprise a limited number of species today. This has led them also to be described as "living fossils", "evolutionary relics", or "anciety fishes". Therefore, by selecting primitive fishes, we elected for a simpler descriptor, rejecting the more scientifically robust or more emotive terms. [1] AtsmeWills☯ talk 22:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Tiktaalik refers to Alligator Gar as resembling a Tiktaalik. This deserves a mention on the Alligator Gar page, and reference to fish evolution. Is the Alligator Gar a still-at-it Tiktaalik with its lung and its paddly fins and its spawning during floods (which must leave it stranded and needing to truck through the mud a piece) or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:46C:4101:CABC:C8FF:FEA5:82F4 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alligator gar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I propose to review this article and will be starting my review within the next few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In general this article is well written and organized.

• The caption to the taxobox image needs attention.
• The opening sentences of the lead could be a bit more explanatory. Is this a marine or a freshwater fish? Is it a bony or a cartilaginous fish? Where is it found? What is its size? The word "euryhaline" is wikilinked but the reader should not need to click through to understand its significance. The "superorder Holostei" is mentioned but does not appear in the taxobox.
• You need to think whether you are going to use the singular or the plural when describing the fish. For example these sentences go from one to the other: "Its common name was derived from its resemblance to the American alligator, particularly its broad snout and long sharp teeth. Their body ... "
• The lead section should be a summary of the information in the body of the text. It should not need to contain inline citations because the referencing should be present in the main text. At the moment there are several topics in the lead section that are not mentioned elsewhere.
• The sentence about gars being primitive fishes could go in a "Taxonomy and evolution" section.
• The present Taxonomy section contains scientific names that should be italicized.
• There is a general scarcity of wikilinking.
• The Anatomy and physiology section could do with more of a description of the fish, its colouring, shape, fins etc.
• The article contains close paraphrasing and copyright infringements. For example, the article states " ... are commonly found in the warm, sluggish backwaters of lowland rivers and lakes, in swamps, reservoirs, brackish waters, bayous and bays in the Southern United States." and the source states " They are commonly found in the warm, sluggish backwaters of lowland rivers and lakes, in swamps, reservoirs, brackish waters, bayous and bays."
• The tool "Duplicate detector" is not working at the moment so it is not easy for me to check for generalised copyright issues.

I am going to stop there for the moment. If there are widespread copyright issues with the article they need to be addressed. They may be nothing to do with your involvement with the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I can comment here, apologies and please move it to an appropriate place if needed. But:

It should not need to contain inline citations - Please, please, please, even if it does not need it, please keep inline citations in the lead, even if such citations are repeated in the main text below. As a Wikipedia reader, it is quite annoying to have to look down (sometimes very much down) in the middle of text to find the source of a fact in the lead. Inline citations never hurt and are actually recommended to preserve text-source integrity (see WP:CITEFOOT, WP:INTEGRITY).--cyclopia^speak! 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am advised by others who know much more about GAs and FAs than I do that there should not be inline citations in the lead because it is just a summary of the contents of the main body of text. But it is not a make or break issue whereas copyright infringements are. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would care less of what the GA/FA clique thinks and more about giving precise references to readers.--cyclopia^speak! 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have placed this GA review on hold, and will decide whether it passes or fails in seven days time. For the moment I note that some instances of close paraphrasing have been reworded, but resolving the issue involves more than changing a few words around. See this page. The other issues I have already raised have not been addressed and I note that the "Early history" section of "Human utilization" relies heavily on a dead link that needs to be replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, thank you for your attention to this article. I have been following your advice, and tweaking the article where necessary. I just wanted to point out the following regarding the "paraphrasing":

1. some of the information that was paraphrased either comes directly or indirectly from government sources which is public domain. For example, actual terminology which is now in widespread use originated from research and studies performed by state and federal resource agencies, such as the Missouri Dept. of Conservation, the American Fisheries Society, and various Fish and Wildlife Depts at State Universities that are co-ops with state resource agencies, all of which is public domain. Information such as habitat, physical characteristics, and scientific terminology can only be paraphrased, or directly quoted which is what I've tried to do with inline citations. Four or five matching words in a sentence with inline citations from public domain sources should not be considered a copyright violation, like the names of the states where alligator gars are found, or the types of habitat they prefer, or the law that protects them.
2. the information derived from one source states the following on its home page: Please feel free to utilize the information we have assimilated, and made available at our website to researchers, students, and educators. Direct quotations with inline citations are encouraged. Our photographs are also available for use under CC BY-SA 3.0 licensing. See [2].
3. I used the tool you provided a link to, and tweaked the article accordingly. I am now going down your list to fix the other issues you pointed out. Again, thank you for your patience, and collaborative efforts. Atsme☯^Consult 15:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok - I've completed the list as follows, and tweaked the article further:

• The caption to the taxobox image needs attention. ✅
• The opening sentences of the lead could be a bit more explanatory. ✅
• You need to think whether you are going to use the singular or the plural when describing the fish. ✅
• The lead section should be a summary of the information in the body of the text. It should not need to contain inline citations because the referencing should be present in the main text. ☑ (I removed most, but left a couple to reach a happy medium)
• The sentence about gars being primitive fishes could go in a "Taxonomy and evolution" section. ✅
• The present Taxonomy section contains scientific names that should be italicized. ✅
• There is a general scarcity of wikilinking. ✅
• The Anatomy and physiology section could do with more of a description of the fish, its colouring, shape, fins etc. ✅
• The article contains close paraphrasing and copyright infringements. ✅ This is one of those instances where close paraphrasing in unavoidable. I also double checked Wikipedia:Plagiarism to make sure there were no violations in the article. Fair use applies, as does "free sources" - see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying_material_from_free_sources. When using Duplication Detector, you are going to see the occasional 4 or 5 words that match in some sentences, most of which are lists, or wide spread use of terminology, a formula, a list of locations, and/or descriptions. Even 100 matched words in multiple paraphrased sentences in an article of nearly 3,000 words does not constitute a copyright violation, especially when the information contains inline citations, are public knowledge, and in the public domain such as the information distributed by government resource agencies. Also see close paraphrasing and in-text attribution: Close paraphrasing: Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought. John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read. Regardless, I tweaked the article even further so there would be no question. I hope it will now satisfy the GA requirements, and again thank you for the time you've invested. Your advice and collaboration is much appreciated. Atsme☯^Consult 16:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is coming along quite nicely now. However I did not read all the way through it in detail before because I got distracted by the close paraphrasing issue. Reading further: -

• "When the rivers rise and spread over the floodplain, it creates oxbows and sloughs along the river" - This starts with plural rivers and then moves on to singular.
• "The eggs of alligator gars are bright red in color, and they are poisonous to invertebrates, including humans, if ingested." - Humans are not usually considered to be invertebrates. :-)
• There is duplication between the Anatomy section and the Taxonomy and evolution section with regard to the swim bladder lung.
• "The meat of the alligator gar is white, firm, and quite flavorful." - This sentence is tacked on the end of the history section and is out of place.
• "The specimen which has long since been preserved was caught at nearby Beardstown, and measured 8.5 ft (2.6 m) in length." - What does this sentence mean?
• It seems to me that the article is arranged in a rather odd way. I would expect to find Distribution much earlier in the article and human uses at the end. Have a look at the way Rainbow trout, an FA, is arranged.

When you have considered the points I've raised above, I will list the GA criteria and we'll see where we're at! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ha!! I can't believe I missed such a glaring error. Too funny. Will get right on it, and the other things you pointed out. Atsme☯^Consult 02:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I didn't create more errors during the cut & paste rearrange process.

• "When the rivers rise and spread over the floodplain, it creates oxbows and sloughs along the river" - This starts with plural rivers and then moves on to singular. ✅ - fixed
• "The eggs of alligator gars are bright red in color, and they are poisonous to invertebrates, including humans, if ingested." - Humans are not usually considered to be invertebrates. :-) ✅ - Still scratching my head on that one, but fixed.
• There is duplication between the Anatomy section and the Taxonomy and evolution section with regard to the swim bladder lung. ✅ - fixed
• "The meat of the alligator gar is white, firm, and quite flavorful." - This sentence is tacked on the end of the history section and is out of place. ✅ - fixed dangling sentence
• "The specimen which has long since been preserved was caught at nearby Beardstown, and measured 8.5 ft (2.6 m) in length." - What does this sentence mean? ✅ - good question. Fixed.
• It seems to me that the article is arranged in a rather odd way. I would expect to find Distribution much earlier in the article and human uses at the end. Have a look at the way Rainbow trout, an FA, is arranged. ✅ Rearranged.

Atsme☯^Consult 05:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  The article looks to comply with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.

(a) the prose is clear and concise, it now respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct 

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation 

  The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline 

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose) 

(c) it contains no original research 

  The article seems to cover the main aspects of the subject.

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic 

(b) There are instances where the article strays off-topic. Examples are the record fish and the excessively detailed description of the Lacey Act infringement. Probably within the bounds permitted. 

  The article's history shows that it is stable.

  The images used in the article serve a relevant illustrative purpose, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content 

(b) Images are mostly relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions but they are unnecessarily crowded together, squashing the text, leaving other areas of text unillustrated. I thought the jug fishing video clip was not worth including..  

Final assessment - I believe this article now reaches the GA criteria.  Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(b) There are instances where the article strays off-topic. Examples are the record fish and the excessively detailed description of the Lacey Act infringement. I reworded "record fish" under Anatomy section to read "largest alligator gar on record". I left the Lacey Act as is because (1) it is in the lead, and (2) I feel it is both important and notable to include the poaching issue, the seriousness of the crime, and the penalties involved. I also believe readers will benefit from this information. I hope you will agree.

(b) Images are mostly relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions but they are unnecessarily crowded together, squashing the text, leaving other areas of text unillustrated. I thought the jug fishing video clip was not worth including. I resized, and redistributed pictures and video, and removed jug fishing clip. On my screen, the article appears balanced. Atsme☯^Consult 13:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I find the current plain picture formatting of the gallery under the "Human utilization" paragraph quite unpleasant. It is inconsistent (all other images in the article are, as expected, standard MediaWiki framed thumbnails: why the gallery images are not?), and the lack of frames, along with the caption font size (which is equal to that of the article, instead of being slightly smaller and distinct), makes it look quite ugly, confusing and it looks amateurish. Notice also that in WP:IMAGESYNTAX, the recommended syntax is a thumbnail one. While there is no absolute MOS preference for one or the other style, I see no benefit in the current format. --cyclopia^speak! 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed over to the table syntax. Row is centered on page, placeholders have border, images are all the same height, text is smaller and centered in a caption box, and all is consistent with style of other images in article. Atsme☯^Consult 21:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better, thanks!--cyclopia^speak! 08:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Three separate provisions of which two were the same:

"The charges included violations of three separate provisions of the Lacey Act, specifically conspiracy to submit a false label for fish transported in interstate commerce; conspiracy to transport fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law or regulation; and conspiracy to transport and sell fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law or regulation."

Unfortunately the source has the same problem. The appeal court judgment says the third charge was "knowingly engaging in conduct that involves the sale or purchase of, the offer of sale or purchase of, or the intent to sell or purchase, fish or wildlife or plants with a market value in excess of $350, knowing that the fish or wildlife or plants were taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of, or in a manner unlawful under, an underlying law, treaty or regulation", but that might be a little long for the article. Belle (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the last two charges are not the same. The charge of "conspiracy to transport fish in interstate commerce", and the charge of "conspiracy to transport and sell fish" are two different charges.Atsme☯^Consult 02:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Belle I added back the statement about alligator gars being considered a trash-fish for nearly a half-century because people's perception of them as such was a big part of the reason for their decline over the past 50 years, and why resource agencies were eradicating them. The Warm Springs article I cited further down in the Early history section also confirms, "...their numbers have also substantially decreased over the past 50 years which includes the following explanation ...but mostly they were considered a "trash fish" and were targeted for eradication or control. See the following if you need further confirmation: [3] [4] [5] Atsme☯^Consult 05:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the "past half century" was that also included the past decade when their role was re-evaluated. Dropping the "past" fixes it, you can remove the citation from the lead again if you like (I wasn't challenging the fact, just trying to make it make sense in the context of the subsequent sentence) Belle (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Belle.

In the lead and elsewhere, it's said that they grow to be 10 ft (3 m) long, but the largest ever caught was apparently only eight and half feet. Obviously that could be the heaviest, rather than the longest, specimen caught, but I think we need to either get a ref that definitively states they can grow to 10', or cut back the maximum size. I did some preliminary searching, but couldn't find anything good. Matt Deres (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed records, including anecdotal record in lead, Anatomy section, and Sport fishing section. Atsme☯^Consult 15:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article, one of the links that should link to an oxbow lake, instead links to an actual oxbow (like a plow oxen would wear). I will make the modification and link it to "oxbow lake". Levontaun (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Per box at the top of this page, an editor has WP:SELFCITEd with regard to "earthwave". Those contribs need to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing. Once the article is cleaned by an independent editor, the tag can be removed. If you do that, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I married an alligator gar in 1995, and my family are all alligator gars. Do you realize how stupid this is? Atsme^📞📧 23:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Atsme.2C_Earthwave.2C_WP:SELFCITE.2C_Gabor_B._Racz I won't be interacting with you further on this, except to reply once at these various talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Good. See you at ARBCOM. Atsme^📞📧 03:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Following clean up by Dr Chrissie, the COIN decision and my own review, I'm removing COI tags. Please end the edit warring now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 

I was wondering whether something could be salvaged from the photos that were entered and deleted from the article recently. I found the photo taken from above the fish was rather eye-catching so I played with it for a few minutes. Please see below. I feel it is quite educational, although the quality is not the best (distracting background, low resolution.) Given the high quality of the images already in the article, this might outweigh its educational value, but I thought I would suggest it (by the way - are they nostrils?)DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, I'm of the opinion that if we add more images they should be verifiably captioned with relevance to the prose. For example, an image depicting the nares on an alligator gar (believed to be used for chemoreception) would be an improvement if it was properly cited, captioned and supported in the prose under the section titled Anatomy and physiology. There are sources that describe nares on air-breathing fishes, but there is no mention of alligator gar specifically. If you find something, then that would be a good image, indeed. We must also be careful to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR when researching for relevant sources. Perhaps you have access to some ichthyology books we can cite? Atsme^📞📧 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought the image might be useful for it's pictorial education - I, for one, had not appreciated how broad their snout is. I have no other scientific information to add, so perhaps we leave it here until appropriate content is found.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Atsme: No drama over this. I'm just wondering why you seem to want the word "anecdotal" in the article. To my mind, this devalues an article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I probably should have responded to you here, but I replied at your TP. I'll move it here. Atsme^📞📧 22:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, DrChrissy - the reason Alligator gar specifically stated "anecdotal reports" and anecdotal evidence in scientific reports is because that's exactly what they are - anecdotal, no scientific proof, word of mouth, supposition - in other words, there are no "official reports" and no scientific evidence to confirm or deny the claim; therefore, it's still considered "anecdotal". We cannot say anything in WP voice that is not official or verifiable, especially when the cited sources use the words claim, or "it has been reported", or refer to it as "anecdotal evidence". I know you were trying to be helpful but I don't think it's accurate to say in WP voice that they can grow to be 10 ft. The verifiable facts tell us that they get heavier not longer after they reach a certain size (under 10 ft.) - refer to the official records which verify the largest alligator gar ever caught and recorded was about 8-1/2 ft. long. Following are some official verifiable reports that support what I'm saying is accurate about how their weight increases rather than their length, [6], [7], [8]. I went ahead and put the information back the way it was when it passed the GA review. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to research and check for verifiable information that would justify the removal of anecdotal. I simply don't believe we're there, yet. Atsme^📞📧 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This might sound silly... but since it's an article on a sport fish, I was wondering if there should be a section on how they taste? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a large Alligator gar currently residing in the moat of Nagoya Castle in Japan. It has been sighted several times and photographed. Attempts to catch the gar have not been successful. Source. GummyYeti (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not unusual to see transplants. They often start as aquarium novelties, then when they get too big to keep, they're dumped into ponds, etc. Humans are the primary cause for exotic introductions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)