Talk:Asian arowana

Upcoming Major Edit

I am currently working on a major edit to the Asian Arowana section and would appreciate any people who have particular interest in this article to keep a close eye out over the next week and comment on any changes. This will include changes to: Breeding, Identification, Commercial Aspects, Micro chipping, Recent licensing changes, future licensing changes planned, Genetic Research, Common Ailments, Feeding Advice, Footnotes, Images.

ShockTherapy (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Major edit

Having come across an article on the redescription of Asian arowanas (Pouyad, Sudarto & Teugels, 2003), I'm going to rewrite parts of this article to reflect the new species described. Ginkgo100 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just posted the major revision. It's definitely not where it needs to be, but I wanted to get the "in use" template off there ASAP. Ginkgo100 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Towards FA

The article is looking great, but I suspect it'll have to be more comprehensive to become Featured. I don't see myself helping out much on this one, but I can suggest some new material, if you know where to find it:

• Quantitative measurements on physical characteristics: how long are the fish, how large is that caudal fin, how long do they live in the wild or in captivity...
• Do they jump like the other Arowanas?
• Vernacular names among the natives
• Life cycle
• Is there anything interesting to say about their first description in 1844?
• Are they found in early art or poetry?

Melchoir 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good ideas. Thanks for your response. These are all great directions for expanding the article. I have a copy of the journal article by Pouyaud et al. which includes quantitative measurements. Also, Excaliburhorn added that Asian arowanas can be imported into several countries not including the U.S. Does anybody know what countries they can legally be imported into? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 03:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Although they are illegal to possess in my country (the U.S.), they are popular in other countries where they can be traded under certain restrictions. Therefore, I'm adding some information on keeping Asian arowanas in aquariums. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Fail

I initial inclination was to pass this article, but there are just too many sections vital to articles on living things missing. If the issues below are addressed, I will be happy to pass it.

While I feel like I now have a basic understanding of these fish, and what deliniates the different varieties, there are a few things I'd still like to see added to the article:

1. Research studies are mentioned twice (both times descriptions of new species) without being referenced. If possible, add a inline citation for each of those citing the original work that described the species. I added a citation needed template to each of them so they are easy to find.
2. Although you briefly mention habitat and diet in the intro, I would like to see this info, as well as info on species behavior, fleshed out more elsewhere. Are they associated with any other fish or organisms in their natural habitat? What is their natural water temperature? etc.
3. Are any factors other than capture for pet trade affecting these fish? Habitat destruction? If so, mention.
4. I would also like to see a section on species behavior (I realize we are covering four species here and it might differ, but if some generalizations can be made, that'd be great). For example, do they feed in groups? Do they school? Are they agressive?
5. What about courtship/mating/reproduction? A section describing this would be great.
6. Please include measurements in the description, such as length, weight, etc.

For many of these suggested paragraphs (ecology, morphology, behavior, etc.) you can look at animal or plant articles that have reached FA or GA status for examples of how this is done if you are unsure.

Other than that, looks good! Drop a line on my talk page when you've fixed these. Thanks! --NoahElhardt 15:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All my concerns have been met, this article now easily passes GA standards. Well done! --NoahElhardt 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues

I have been considering sending this over to Good Article review; it seems to be lacking some key points. Per the GA criteria,

• Well written I have fixed a few of the more obvious issues, but the lead does not seem to really describe the importance of the fish. Taxonomy discussion seems excessive, the diet never seems to come up again (see below), and there's a sense it is just an amalgamation of facts more than a clear definition of the subject and its importance. The taxonomy is poorly integrated, with two lists containing what seems to be the same breakdown from different sources.
• Factually accurate I removed the one uncited line which seemed to contradict later, cited information, but I lack any significant expertise here. I have not verified the information from sources. The IUCN data was updated in 2011, which is not reflected in the article.
• Broad in coverage Key information seems to be missing. The behavior section is rather scant. There's one line on diet in the lead, a couple in "care in captivity." If the lead is accurate, cultural beliefs are relevant, but that's an empty heading at the moment. Habitat information is scattered among different sections, rather than in a section of its own.
• Neutral Seems reasonably neutral.
• Stable Seems stable.
• Illustrated Well illustrated. If there were a diagram illustrating the morphology being described in the description section, it would help, but I don't think it is required.

Any thoughts on how we can clean this up? Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I think there should be some sort of discussion as how to handle the taxonomy, if anyone else is interested. There seems to be limited evidence of the varieties being distinct enough to be considered separate species. I've read 4 sources which don't seem to think there is enough variation to warrant new species, I'll cite those in the article, which find enough variation within the color populations, as well as using multiple genes. The Pouyaud et al. paper used just cytb, and morphometrics. It looks like they are more phenotypic than genetic differences based on what I'm reading. Based on this, I think it should be handled as one species, and phenotypic varieties. Also, the two citations in the first sentence (Some sources differentiate these varieties into multiple species), ITIS and the Pouyaud et al. paper are circular, because ITIS cites the Pouyaud et al. paper as justification for those additional species. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 22:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Asian arowana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Breaking down issues by GA criteria:

• Well written
  • The lead does not seem to really describe the importance of the fish. Some of the facts mentioned are the only place they appear. Taxonomy discussion seems excessive, and there's a sense it is just an amalgamation of facts more than a clear definition of the subject and its importance. Evolution discussion is great.
  • In the description section, the taxonomy is poorly integrated, with two lists containing what seems to be almost the same breakdown, one based on genetics the other on coloration (note that one color was not examined in the genetic study). The taxonomic dispute seems to only be mentioned in one sentence, with no description of basis.
  • The behavior section seems to be a few facts from aquarists, but no systematic treatment.
  • The relationship with humans has an empty sub-heading. Conservation overview is quite good, I think. The care in captivity subheading borders on being a how-to.
  • The referencing is hard to follow in places (eg Sin Min 2005), but fairly extensive. Some of the links appear to be dead, as would be expected.
• Factually accurate I lack any significant expertise here. I have not verified the information from sources. The IUCN data was updated in 2011, which is not reflected in the article.
• Broad in coverage This seems to be the major area in need of improvement; key information seems to be missing. The behavior section is rather scant. There's one line on diet in the lead, a couple in "care in captivity." If the lead is accurate, cultural beliefs are relevant, but that's an empty heading at the moment. Habitat information is scattered among different sections, rather than in a section of its own. Life history information is minimal, as is ecological information.

Other parts of GA criteria seem okay. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

How goes the reassessment? AIRcorn (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not sure how long to leave the reassessment up. It has been here for just over a month and no one has commented or edited the article (it only had one major contributor, who I notified, but is not very active). --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A month is usually more than enough time to fix any issues. You could leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes if you want to make sure all the bases are covered; the ultimate aim here is to keep this as a good article. Otherwise it is probably time to delist it. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can take a swing at it. I know it's been a while though. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 18:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the "notes" section something that is an outdated form? I'll have to find all out these sources, generate proper ref tags and put them into a reflist.Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 19:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not sure about the taxonomy as presented. The multiple species listed are considered junior synonyms by a few sources. I'll have to read them before I start organizing what appears to be very confusing. It's not very wise to start listing newly redescribed taxa until they are accepted as valid, especially when the redescriptions are from only one source. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 01:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for all the edits. I took care of all the references, removed dead links and non-relevant ones. I removed some of the how-to parts, and I'll redo some of the other areas, like behavior, add info and rework the taxonomy. As for the IUCN data, it was updated in 2011 but the species has not been reassessed since 1996, so the article is accurate as to its listing status. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How does the taxonomy look now? The majority of studies don't believe the color variants are separate species, but they are distinct enough to warrant recognition, especially since they are regional populations, and due to their desire in the aquarium trade, and some are more threatened than others. The red strain seems to be most prized, and is the most endangered population of the species. I'll mention that in the article.Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 23:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Asian arowana. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1542307,00110002.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Asian arowana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1542307%2C00110002.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/9665/vic.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010830023041/http://www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp to http://www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205000120/http://www.brh.co.jp/en/experience/journal/39/research_1.html to http://www.brh.co.jp/en/experience/journal/39/research_1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://arowanaclub.com/stories.php?story=05%2F05%2F17%2F0471602

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)