Talk:Fishing cat/GA3

GA Review

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

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 17:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TheTechnician27 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 10 October 2024 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose flows in a natural, understandable way with no ostensible spelling mistakes. Any grammatical mistakes found (I corrected most or all of them) were due to an absence of commas, but these were not distracting and did not hinder comprehensibility. Lead adequately summarizes the points made in the article. The overall layout comports with the manual of style. MOS:WHATPLACE is technically violated with the words 'sometimes' and 'often', but these are not used in ways that would hamper understanding or where robust statistical information could be substituted/would be important.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Article contains a references section, and all citations are stylistically consistent and well-formatted and afford plenty of information to a reader hoping to track these sources down. Inline citations are used consistently (including in captions when necessary), and all of the sources appear reliable – either being articles in peer-reviewed academic journals or books by credible publishers. Because this is the most extensive part of the review, original research and copyvio evaluations will be provided per-section below:
Lead: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Taxonomy: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Characteristics: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): The article states "The fishing cat is the largest cat of the Prionailurus" (and this seems true), but I don't see that in the text cited. I placed a '?' here instead of a fail because it's entirely possible I'm missing something. Page wasn't properly noted in the citation, but per Bhagya (and can be independently verified shortly), this is in the source.
I think the editor who added the text analyzed the sizes of cats in the genus and found the fishing cat to be the largest. I don't see where the source says that outright, so I think I'll be replacing it.
Couldn't find an appropriate source stating this, so I removed it

Distribution and habitat: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Behaviour and ecology: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): Rewrote an excerpt which rose to the level of close paraphrasing but did not rise to the level of copyvio; nonetheless, that's fixed now. The '?' is for the excerpt "sometimes diving into the water to catch prey further from the banks", as I did not see that in sections 1.2 or 5.4. Again, though, this is likely just me not being able to be thorough enough to read the entire thesis and therefore missing something. (As we only cite it one time, page numbers could be very useful here). Don't know how I missed this in the WCoW citation the first time I read it.
Judging from this edit, the ref should be the WCoW one. I'm not at all sure of when the changing of references occurred.

Threats: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): "In one instance, between 2012 and 2015, poachers were arrested after slaying 31% of radio-collared animals in Thailand." I can see that this is referencing the 5/16ths figure from page 9, but I don't see anything about the poachers being arrested. (fixed) ~~Moreover, I don't see what in this source attests to "They are also hunted for their meat, which is used for traditional causes."~~ (in source, but I rewrote excerpt for clarity)

Conservation: c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article appears to cover the major aspects of the subject without straying into unnecessary detail. Its diet, behavior, habitat, appearance, distribution, health, reproductive cycle, manmade threats, conservation efforts, taxonomical status, and phylogeny (which I think constitute all of the major topics) are all covered and in enough detail to give the reader a good introductory understanding of each of them while not straying into detail which is extraneous for an encyclopedia. Although the list of locations in 'Distribution and habitat' seems somewhat exhaustive, this is offset by the fact that the fishing cat is listed as vulnerable and has been subject to habitat loss, meaning where it is at any given time is highly relevant. The points that grungaloo quickfailed this article on in March seem to have been addressed at least enough to meet 3(a). In all likelihood, this doesn't rise to the level of thorough coverage required for a FAR, but for a GAR, this seems sufficient.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Taxonomy, characteristics, distribution, and behavior sections should not be prone to POV and, as expected, showed no obvious signs of it from the perspective of a non-expert. Threats and conservation sections which could be prone to POV editing are handled with care, stating the facts dispassionately, without attempting to soapbox, sticking to neutral academic sources, and taking up an appropriate portion of the article.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Editing appears amicable, dominated by a couple major editors, most prominently Wolverine XI and BhagyaMani. Unambiguous pass.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Image licensure seems fine, and the article has several high-quality images of the subject as well as a very useful distribution map. Given this is the fishing cat, I think it would be ideal to have an image of it in the water if possible, but because I think most readers can picture a cat swimming, I would see this more as a barrier for FA status than for GA. The captions are suitable and concise. The only reason this fails 6(b) right now is simply because none of the images have alt text which is crucial for visually impaired readers.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@Wolverine XI: @BhagyaMani: Okay, the review is done, and all six criteria are met. The overall pass/fail is still on hold while I see if Grungaloo has any objections, but I'll be updating that to a pass at 00:00 UTC on 17 October or immediately if Grungaloo responds and sees no issue. If they do take issue with it, then we can sort that out from there, but I think you've sufficiently remedied the cause of the previous quickfail. I think you both have every right to claim credit for this GA on your pages once everything goes through. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: So? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 03:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine XI: Apologies, just got sidetracked doing some things today. I've gone ahead and marked the overall as passed absent any objections. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]