Talk:Pallid sturgeon

Pallid sturgeon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 11, 2015.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 11, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
December 21, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Montana Low‑importance

	Montana portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Nebraska Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Nebraska portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska (assessed as Low-importance).

Promoted as I was reviewing

The writing needs a good fix throughout. See my changes and inline comments to the lead alone. Tony (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh comeon, the intro should be specific, but it is the intro...the major specifications are detailed in the body of the article. I really absolutely hate inline comments, so I removed them and made a few adjustments in accordance...if you have/had comments there surely is a FAC page where you can list them...and I am sure you have plenty of comments.--MONGO 14:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the header, you would have known that the FAC page had already been archived before Tony had a chance to comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, if Tony is generous enough to offer advice on an article I suggest it is acted on. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the heading...miffed he waited so long to chime in, and bothered to once again try and throw up a roadblock oppose based on his self appointed belief that he is the only one who must surely know that only his way of writing is the correct way. In the past, I have on occasion adjusted articles based on his comments, but surely not always and especially not in this case, where he makes a mess of the article editing text window with inline comments when the article is already being promoted. In my eyes, having the article featured is way less important than it being excellent...if it isn't excellent, then feel free to send it to FAR. There he can further discuss how he thinks it is lacking and shouldn't be featured.--MONGO 15:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Tony has been busy with the admin watch thing. On the other hand, the article was listed at FAC for nearly five weeks, which I think is plenty of time for people to give input and review. --Aude (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Is there a WP convention or definitive source supporting the capitalization of "pallid" in the name? I spot-checked a number of the cited works, including some from USFWS and USDA, and in all of them the name is lower-cased (save in titles where other words are capitalized as well). Unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, I'd suggest that the article do the same.

--Ammodramus (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up..it should reflect the points you mentioned.--MONGO 03:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. I saw that you'd reverted some edits lowercasing the words, and that you'd put some effort into the article; so I thought it'd be better to discuss before re-lowercasing. --Ammodramus (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated...the IP editor did lower case some of the wording, but missed a few too and not looking at it as well as I should have, reverted his/her work, which I shouldn't have done without better scrutiny.--MONGO 02:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology and usage issues

I've noticed a couple of other issues in this article that I'd like to bring to the attention of someone who knows more about the subject than I—

There appears to be inconsistency in the usage of "sturgeon" vs. "sturgeons" as the plural noun. In the section "Reproduction and life cycle", for instance, I find "Pallid sturgeons have a long lifespan" in the first paragraph; then, in the second paragraph, "pallid sturgeon migrated hundreds of miles".

The third-to-last paragraph of the article, beginning "In the lower reaches of the Platte River", deals with the lower reaches of the Platte in its first half; however, then there's a discussion of water releases from Gavins Point Dam (which is on the Missouri, and which will therefore have very little effect on the lower Platte). Should this paragraph be split in two; and would it be advisable to remind the reader that Gavins Point is on the Missouri?

--Ammodramus (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure...there is always ways to make my prose better. I did the bulk of the work on the article in my bid to get it to featured level, but prose is not my forte. I had others do a lot of cleanup and your improvements sound more than helpful, so feel free to make appropriate adjustments. I'll try andf get the cites cleaned up some too as a few are apparently dead. I already went around last year and cleaned up two other FA's I worked on, so this is about due as well. Appreciate your involvement.--MONGO 02:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]