Template:Did you know nominations/Fishing cat
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Fishing cat
- ...
that in Bangladesh, fishing cats are often confused for tiger cubs and are killed whenever they come into contact with humans?
ALT1: ... that the fishing cat (pictured) is estimated to have diverged together with the leopard cat between 4.31 to 1.74 million years ago and 4.25 to 0.02 million years ago?Source: https://zenodo.org/records/1230866 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4691742/- ALT2: ... that the fishing cat (pictured) is strongly associated with wetlands and preys foremost on fish?
- Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article Status by Wolverine XI (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
Wolverine XI (talk to me) 09:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC).
- Starting review--Kevmin § 17:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The first thing I notice is that alt1 doesnt actually make sense. What are the Fishing Cat and Leopard cats diverging from? Also the MYAs are notably specific, where are they from?--Kevmin § 17:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- They diverged from a common ancestor. This needs to be added. Or would that make ALT1 too long ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI and BhagyaMani: A common ancestor of just the fishing cat or of the Fishing cat and the hybridized Leopard cat, or of the fishing and both leopard cat species? Also, the conflicting divergence estimates shouldn't be an "and" connector, they should be an "or", as they are in conflict with each other.--Kevmin § 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- The fisher is not part of this scenario AT ALL, but is not even a cat. The fishing cat and the leopard cat are members of the same genus, hence had a common ancestor. Estimation of genetic divergence time from this last common ancestor was performed by two different author teams and derived from two different sets of genetic material + analysis. The 1st estimate for this divergence time of 4.31–1.74 million years ago (mya) was based on mitochondrial gene segments, and the 2nd of 4.25–0.02 mya on SNP genotyping. – BhagyaMani (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- The snark is NOT appropriate, we're both aware the taxa in question here. Are you saying that the estimates are for the full genus then its also including the flat face cat and I get that two divergence dates are present, but it doesn't change that the wording "between 4.31 to 1.74 million years ago and 4.25 to 0.02 million years ago" is fallacious. The two dating results are mildly contradictory so saying "and" between them is not correct unless we are explicit about the genes involved, which the article does not do at this point. The clarification of mitochondrial and SNP genotyping is needed. I also feel that alt1 will run afowl of being to specialized for a broad audience as its currently worded.
- There are also close paraphrase issues in the distribution and Behavior sections that should be dealt with. Full sections of sentences are pulled directly from the source material with no attempt at reqording.--Kevmin § 16:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: @Wolverine XI: What would you both think about this hook:ALT3 "... that the fishing cat is threatened by the destruction of wetlands in Southeast Asia?"
.. in Southeast Asia
is erroneous, because destruction -- and conversion -- of wetlands is a threat EVERYWHERE in fishing cat range. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- And how about amending ALT1 to ALT4 "... that the fishing cat diverged from the genus Prionailurus at least 20,000 years ago?" ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: @Wolverine XI: What would you both think about this hook:ALT3 "... that the fishing cat is threatened by the destruction of wetlands in Southeast Asia?"
The close paraphrasing is dealt with, and ALT3 ALT4 hooks are sourced and more hooky for general audiences. GA is new enough and article is very well cited to neutral sourcing. For hook Alt4 @BhagyaMani: we could go with "... that the fishing cat diverged from its sister species at least 20,000 years ago?"--Kevmin § 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think using Prionailurus is more appropriate, as the words 'sister species' are not in the text. And I once learned that words in DYK phrasing needs to be in text. I also suggest to discard ALT1 with the details and source, the more so as this source is not the same as referenced in text. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thats an easy fix, add the words "sister species" into the molecular dating section of the article, the term is uncontroversial. I agree that ALT1 should be discarded.--Kevmin §
- Since Wolverine XI proposed ALT1, shouldn't we wait with discarding this for them to comment and agree ? Though I proposed this to them initially, before I added ALT2. – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)