Talk:Fishing cat

IUCN status of Fishing cat

From various secondary sources, I have found recently that fishing cat is classified as Endangered not vulnerable. Anyone please confirm and change its status. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Heba Aisha the IUCN Red List website still currently says vulnerable here (21 June 2016). If you have any more recent reliable sources I suggest you list them here for people to review. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• The IUCN status is Vulnerable, which is one of their three threatened categories, along with Endangered and Critically Endangered. Is it possible that the other sources are using endangered as a general description (=IUCN threatened) rather than referring specifically to the IUCN category? The fishing cat is "endangered" in a general sense, but not "Endangered" according to IUCN criteria (note cases). —  Jts1882 | talk  15:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible is also that these various secondary sources are websites that have not been updated since 2016. I've seen a blog referring to the outdated status. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 00:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wolverine XI, I can tell you've put a lot of work into this article but it looks like it's missing some information. A search on Google Scholar brings some more detailed information on it's hunting and feeding habits, along with other studies that aren't used here. Also, the IUCN has a lot of information on the threats and population which aren't used here. There's no mention of humans hunting them for food. I'd also expect some information on predators and parasites. Unfortunately I believe this is a quickfail, however once you've addressed the broadness issue I recommend you re-submit. grungaloo (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fishing cat/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 15:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wolverine XI, in the less than 14 hours since the review was last quickfailed, the article has not had substantive change per the feedback of Grungaloo. The only addition was a section on infections. The article still has the same major gaps in content, in particular: interactions with humans, hunting patterns, feeding, parental care, and information from the IUCN. Furthermore, a lot of the language is highly technical and difficult to read. As just one example, "There is evidence that the nominate taxon and the Javan fishing cat are distinguishable by skull morphometrics" is unbroachable to anyone who is not an expert in taxonomy. Please take time to address these concerns before nominating the article again, and please refrain from re-nominating any article so quickly without making substantive improvements after a quickfail. Fritzmann (message me) 15:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop assuming and look at the article history. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the comparison I viewed. Aside from the infections section, one sentence on hunting has been added and three sentences on human interactions have been added. These do not adequately fill the content gaps identified in the last two reviews. I was not assuming, and I did look at the article history. Please do not remove GA reviews from the article's talk page. Fritzmann (message me) 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fishing cat/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Reviewer: TheTechnician27 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

1. 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.

2. 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):

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Editing appears amicable, dominated by a couple major editors, most prominently Wolverine XI and BhagyaMani. Unambiguous pass.

6. 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.

7. 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)

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

@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)

Pocock 1939

Re: verification of fishing cat as largest Prionailurus. Archive.org is down, but my local copy covers the fishing cat on pages 281-284. It doesn't mention being a second edition. It doesn't explicitly say that the fishing cat is the largest Prionailurus. It says it is larger than P. bengalensis and elsewhere says P. rubiginosus is smaller than P. bengalensis (p276). So Pocock considers it the larger of the three Indian Prionailurus cats.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That's right : there is no mention of second edition on the title page. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Re size: Pocock wrote on page 266 under the heading Key to the Three Species Based on External Characters. about viverrinus: ... size, the largest of the genus. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: Sounds good to me. As the IA is down, I've taken you at your word that this is said on page 266. (And yes, this is to my understanding the second edition; we have the first on Wikisource, published in the late 1800s). If this turns out to be some sort of misunderstanding once the IA is back up, this would be trivial to correct, but I trust you on this enough to give it a pass in the review. Besides, I think at this point I've made up my mind to give Grungaloo a week to respond given they previously quick-failed a fairly similar version of the article (I think it's sufficiently different), so the IA should be back by then. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What you call the first edition was NOT written by Pocock but by Blanford. So Pocock's book with the same title is indeed his first and only edition. Pocock's volume 2 was published a few years later. BhagyaMani (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm page 266 for the statement ... size, the largest of the genus.

Agree that Blandford's and Pocock's books, despite the similar titles, are separate works rather than different editions of the same work.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jts1882: What does the whole sentence say? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's part of a key:

a. Tail over half the length of the head and body and over twice the length of the hind foot.

[b and b' distiguishing bengalensis and rubiginosus]

a' Tail less than half the length of the head and body and less than twice the length of the hind foot; size, the largest of the genus ... viverrinus Bennett, p 281.

 —  Jts1882 | talk  12:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, hopefully it doesn't take too long for the internet archive to be up and running once again. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

They are saying days rather than longer. I hadn't realised how often I use that site.  —  Jts1882 | talk  19:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in Bangladesh, fishing cats are often confused for tiger cubs and are killed whenever they come into contact with humans?

• Source: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7159/2/3/27

• 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 Asiais 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)

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)

I didn't receive those pings, because I had changed my username (quite surprised you guys didn't notice). Rest assured, nevertheless, that I should continue using this username throughout my tenure. So I've been keeping an eye on this DYK but recently I've been dealing with the worst kind of stress you can ever imagine, so I advise you all to choose something appropriate for this DYK without my involvement. I need some much needed time to heal 😞. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

@Wolverine XI, BhagyaMani, and TheTechnician27: There are areas in several sections (Behavior, Distribution) that are copyright violations and super close paraphrasing of the source references. These need to be removed or rewritten to clear wp:copyvio rules.--Kevmin § 16:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I trust you on this, so I'm curious: which parts did I miss? Within 'Behaviour and ecology', the only problematic excerpt I noticed per the GA review is one which I already cut down to 'can swim long distances, even underwater'. This is the same string of six words as in the book, but in its current state, I see it entirely as stating a fact from the work cited in the only natural way to express it rather than copyvio; for example, I wouldn't change "it is thought to be primarily nocturnal" to "it is believed that it is predominantly active at night" just to not have a five-word substring that matches the source. I realize now that I overlooked the sentence preceding citation [15] in 'Distribution and habitat', however, as that is unambiguously close paraphrasing. I'll fix that one right away. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That is one, and it could easily be reworded along the lines of "Fishing cats are noted to be long distance swimmers and have been documented to do so underwater". More problematic is the opening sentence of "Distribution and habitat" is pulled almost verbatum from Ref15 Ref 15 page 74. Our article "It predominantly inhabits wetlands, including swamps, marshes, oxbow lakes, reed beds, tidal creeks and mangrove forests, but it is generally absent from fast-flowing water channels", the source "Fishing cats are strongly associated with wetlands. They are typically found in swamps and marshy areas, oxbow lakes, reed beds, tidal creeks, and ". This is the same sentence per Copyvio, and needs reworking, plus the hook used for the DYK nom is a copyvio of the opening for the source.--Kevmin § 17:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin: This is the one I already fixed, but I don't understand what else is supposed to be done with that sentence; the source gives a comma-separated list of six areas where the fishing cat is commonly found, and we give the same six-area, comma-separated list. For example, if I wrote a book stating that "the US states comprising the Pacific Northwest are Washington, Oregon, and Idaho", I couldn't foreseeably treat it as copyvio if someone said "in the US, the Pacific Northwest includes Washington, Oregon, and Idaho". Specifically, we say: "It predominantly inhabits wetlands around slow-moving bodies of water, including swamps, marshes, oxbow lakes, reed beds, tidal creeks, and mangrove forests." The IUCN says: "Fishing cats are strongly associated with wetlands. They are typically found in swamps and marshy areas, oxbow lakes, reed beds, tidal creeks, and mangrove areas." (I did go ahead and change the "even underwater" line to "It is known to be a proficient long-distance and underwater swimmer" not because I thought it was copyvio but moreso because I thought the cadence was bad.) This once again isn't to fix a perceived copyvio issue but moreso for the quality of the article: I will write "It predominantly inhabits densely vegetated wetlands around slow-moving bodies of water, including..." simply because Wild Cats of the World and the IUCN source both agree that dense vegetation is a major component of the cat's habitat. The six-item list, however, I still don't see as problematic; it's just fundamental information about the cat's habitat. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: We can beak it into two sentences that group the types of habitats. They are typically found in freshwater areas like marshes, oxbow lakes and swamps. They also are associated with brackish water environments such as mangrove forests, reed beds, and tidal creeks. --Kevmin § 22:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I'm definitely onboard with something like that which gives additional context to readers. The only nagging points I see for this specific proposal are how we would demarcate fresh-, brackish-, and saltwater. Reed beds are, to my understanding, predominantly freshwater but can be brackish, unless they're mostly brackish specifically in Southeast Asia. I think oxbow lakes are cut-and-dry freshwater. Swamps and marshes can, I'm pretty sure, just be all three. I think tidal creeks vary between brackish and salt, and I think it's similar with mangroves. With that ambiguity introduced, neither the WCoW or IUCN sources mention the salinity of those habitats, so it seems to be WP:SYNTH barring another source. Edit: Oh, wait, I think I can do something here. Edit 2: Done. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: That looks great, reed beds are low and high salinity depending on specifics of geography, (Great Salt Lake has native and invasive reed beds). I placed tidal creeks in the brackish grouping specifically due to having higher salt concentration then freshwaters. As the opening at Mangrove notes, A mangrove is a shrub or tree that grows mainly in coastal saline or brackish water. Mangroves grow in an equatorial climate, typically along coastlines and tidal rivers. They have particular adaptations to take in extra oxygen and remove salt, allowing them to tolerate conditions that kill most plants. There are some freshwater species, but they are the exception. I think we can clarify this even more by taking sentence one and adding the distinctions between the two (trees vers herbaceous cover) eg: It predominantly inhabits densely vegetated wetlands around slow-moving bodies of water like tree dominated swamps and herbaceous plant dominated marshes. Then we can massage the wording of setence 2 as such Habitats include low-salinity bodies such as oxbow lakes through reed beds into high-salinity ones such as tidal creeks and mangrove forests..--Kevmin § 23:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)