Talk:Fisher (animal)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 07:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will read this article now, and review it within the next couple of hours. The article looks very good, so most of my comments are merely suggestions. I've fixed some minor issues along the way.

Though authors of several synonyms are mentioned under taxonomy, there's no mention of Erxleben, who coined the original species name. Perhaps he should be mentioned?

He wasn't mentioned in the references that I read, another editor added the synonyms. I'll look into it. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I find such info interesting myself, so it's nice to have. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the reference by Elliot Coues published in 1877. You can read it here [1] on page 66. Its rather confusing. Apparently three different taxonomists described the same specimen calling it different names, apparently unaware of each other's work. Pennant's name stuck. Erxleben and another taxonomist Schreber described it 6 years later (using Pennant's data) but Erxleben published first using the name as Mustela pennantii (two i's). Erxleben also used Schreber's name Mustela canadensis as a separate species in the same publication. At the time, the fisher was listed under a different genus Mustela, the weasel family. So it's a mug's game about who deserves the credit. Atrian (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could a brief sumamry of the situation be included?FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I'll take another look at it. Atrian (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the etymology section should be a subsection under taxonomy?

Etymology is about how names are derived, a study of linguistics. Taxonomy is the scientific classification of species based on morphological characteristics. It might be better to place evolution under taxonomy as this is more closely related. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the dentition info should go under description?

I placed dentition under taxonomy because it factored into the placement of the genus, Martes as opposed to Mustela. However a case could be made for putting it under description. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paragraph could well go under description, since comparison with related animals are often placed there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following seems incorrect: "Although some debate still exists, in general it is recognized that the fisher is a monotypic genus with no extant subspecies.[10]" There seem to be other species in the genus Martes, so perhaps species is meant?

You are right. I corrected the sentence. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it might have been hard to find good images, as there don't seem to be many on Commons. Found this free one on Flickr[2], not too good, but it shows an alert pose not seen in other photos in the article. Since much of the article covers fur skins, perhaps show a picture[3] of one?

If I want to use these images, can I just upload them to Wikimedia? What source do I use? Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last ones are already on Commons, I've uploaded the first one here:[4] As for other Flickr images, you need to do a search for freely licensed images there, and then you can use this tool[5] to upload them. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence seems a bit odd: "there is speculation that they are used for communication for reproduction." Maybe change the wording, should it be "during/prior to reproduction" or something like that?

You're right the wording was odd but I wasn't sure how to word it appropriately. I took a stab at it. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new sentence is much clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems quite amazing: "While uncommon, fishers have been found to kill larger animals such as wild turkey, bobcat and lynx.[18][19][20]" Were those adult lynxes and bobcats? Should probably be specified.

These were definitely exceptional situations. How the fishers accomplished these feats is unclear. It's possible that the fisher cornered the animals in deep snow, possibly dropping on them from above. The fishers can climb trees after all. It's also possible that the larger animals were old or weak from disease. Atrian (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. If anything more specific turns up, it could be nice to have in. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit unclear: "Male and female fishers have overlapping territories. This behavior is imposed on females by males due to dominance in size and a male desire to increase mating success.[25]" Does this mean that males intrude on the territory of the females?

I suppose the males do that because they can. I need to look at the reference material again. Atrian (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "distribution" should be a subsection under "habitat", as in other articles?

I was using the raccoon article as a model which has distribution and habitat as subsections under range. Since the range of the fisher is not as large a topic as it is for raccoons, I left them as two separate sections. Atrian (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of paragraphs under "Fishers and people" that lack citation in the end. Perhaps the title should be changed to "Relationship with people/humans"?

I did some minor edits on the placement of the citations. Only the first paragraph lacks a citation. I wrote that as an intro to the whole section. I read somewhere in the MOS that you shouldn't have a subsection title directly underneath a section title. This paragraph was my answer. As for the section title, I was using the raccoon article as a template. Atrian (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could a citation be added anyway, for the sake of verifiability? I think everything within the main text should have citations, only the lead is exempt. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it might take a couple of days since I have to visit the library to read some of the original references. Atrian (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can just use some of the same refs that are used below the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the info under distribution seems to overlap with that in the conservation section.

True. In the distribution section I was looking for a way to link the historical reduction and expansion of the range due to trapping with the topic of reintroductions and how that has restored their range. In the conservation section, the efforts were more related to restoring a sustainable population for trapping. Maybe I should have a separate conservation section? Atrian (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big problem, you can leave it as is. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The part under distribution about the relationship with porcupines seems to be about ecology, and perhaps more suited in the behaviour section?

The relationship between porcupine and fisher populations is related to the reintroduction. That's why I mentioned it. Atrian (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. It's been a big help. Atrian (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a pleasure. Makes me want to review more GAs, because I actually learn something in the process, when the articles are already this good. Apart from three or four issues, it's ready to go. I assume you'll continue working on it even if I pass it now, so I will, as it is already a GA so to speak. Fixing the remaining issues could help it get to FA, perhaps. FunkMonk (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: