 | Dwarf pufferfish has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 18, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
 | Dwarf pufferfish (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 July 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Dwarf pufferfish appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 November 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| .jpg) |
Needs a lot of work[edit]
This article is poor. It assumes everyone reading it is keeping these things as pets. Surprise, these fish live in the wild, and the bulk of the article should be about what countries they come from, what environments they inhabit, what foods they eat, etc. The list of what they eat in the aquarium is nice, but freshwater pufferfish certainly aren't eating mysids or krill in the wild, so as far as "facts" go these aren't helpful in the least and actually very misleading. There's virtually no ecology here worth anything, and nothing at all about phylogeny. What on earth is "personality" when discussing wild fish?
The references all seem to direct to the same web site, which is an aquarium-oriented one. Let's have some citations from scientific papers, general fish biology books, etc.
If I get some time, I'm tempted to blank the entire thing and start over. Comments?
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- why don't you do something about it. besides, it would be impossible for every article on every fish, even obscure ones such as the dwarf puffer, to be full of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by user name or IP (talk • contribs) date
- I already have made changes to Carinotetraodon and some of the pufferfish articles such as Tetraodontidae and Fugu. But I didn't want to upset earlier editors of this particular articles without getting their feedback first. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 12:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to keep these fish with cichlids?
Lsuacner (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Total rewrite[edit]
OK, I've done the job and made the article one about the biology of the fish. Please note that while editors may wish to expand the section of aquarium maintenance, observations of "personality" and "favourite foods" don't belong in the science sections. Dwarf pufferfish don't eat pond snails or krill or flake food *in the wild*. So don't say that they do. Also, any references should be verifiable, i.e., not web pages but printed magazine articles or books. Ebert's Aqualog book is probably the best for that, but there may be others.
What this article does need is more stuff taken from the scientific literature, for example on longevity in the wild, phylogeny, value to local populations as food or for export, and so on.
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just did a quick copyedit, tried to place all the aquarium related stuff in one place (the aquarium section) and keep it short. But it's still longer than any other section here, apologies for that, unfortunately we seem to know more practical info about these fish from the aquarium community than other sources.. I added a link to dwarfpuffers.com, since it's a well-regarded noncommercial site for the aquarium hobbyists.
- The 'reproduction' section still needs a cleanup, since it basically only covers aquarium breeding. I could not see an easy way to do that, so have left it alone.
- EasyTarget (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Its not unreasonable to make the aquarium section a significant portion of the article. The puffers are notable almost entirely because they're common in the aquarium trade, and because they're encountered so much more in the trade, we know a lot more about keeping them in captivity. Blucanary99 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Venomous?[edit]
Are these venomous like some of their ocean-dwelling cousins?Bill (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Access to "Sexual dimorphism of a freshwater puffer fish" by N.D. Inasu (1993)[edit]
I've found several resources that reference this paper ([1], [2], [3], for example), but I can't seem to find the original document itself. Is anyone able to help me find it? It is for the claim that the fish were found in inundated brickyards and may also be useful for cleaning up the description section.
-- Primium (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like the full title is "Sexual dimorphism of freshwater puffer fish, Tetradon [sic?] (Monotretus) travancoricus (Hora & Nair) collected from Trichur district Central Kerala", but I've still yet to actually find the paper. -- Primium (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Range map[edit]
Requesting someone make a distribution map of the species using the info provided in the article and references, or from the [geographic range] section of their IUCN page. Doesn't have to be specifically those waterways, just the general area. Thank you. -- Primium (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Dwarf pufferfish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Taxonomy[edit]
"was first described as Tetraodon (Monotretus) travancoricus" --- no it wasn't, it was described as just one binomial; it's actually unclear which genus that was as Hora & Nair 1941 is ambiguous --- their text uses Monotretus whereas their title uses both (perhaps the heading was updated by a sub-editor, or something). It looks as if an additional ref or explanation is needed here.- It's just the subgenus. I updated the article to explain the use of parenthases.
We need to know who assigned the species to Tetraodon, and also to Carinotetraodon.- The section says Tetraodon was Hora and Nair and Carinotetraodon was Britz and Kottelat.
C. imitator is missing from the cladogram; its position is of some interest as readers will wonder whether it is a very close relative, or not. A ref may be needed.
Are other species also missing? If so, that may be fine, the tree just giving an overview, but if that is the position and intention you must say so.- Updated paragraph, including note about C. imitator.
Given that "Carinotetraodon" is polyphyletic, I suggest you place it in inverted commas (as shown here) in the cladogram at least, to indicate that there is an issue with the name. You might want to add a note to that effect just above the cladogram.- Done.
Suggest you replace the "[a]" footnotes in the cladogram with the plain (not footnote) letters "FW" and just write (freshwater species are marked "FW") in the sentence about the cladogram. (Actually, if anyone thinks that the clade that includes Leiodon and Pao, and the Tetraodon clade, are basally freshwater then it'd be nicer to use "|sublabel="FW"" for those clades. But I guess nobody has proposed that?)- Done.
Description[edit]
Wikilink iridescent.- In the image description? The paragraph already has it.
"may or may not show" => "may have".- Fixed.
"also have skin spines" => cut the "also".- Fixed.
The section on C. imitator feels repetitive given that we were already told the 2 species were alike in "Taxonomy". It might be best just to remove the gloss on C. imitator from "Taxonomy", but the overlap needs some attention.- What about changing the sentence in 'Taxonomy' to just 'The first use of "Carinotetraodon travancoricus" was in 1999 by R. Britz and M. Kottelat when first describing Carinotetraodon imitator.'?
- Something like that.
- What about changing the sentence in 'Taxonomy' to just 'The first use of "Carinotetraodon travancoricus" was in 1999 by R. Britz and M. Kottelat when first describing Carinotetraodon imitator.'?
"pufferfish will" --- cut the "will".- Fixed.
Distribution and habitat[edit]
"27 known species of Tetraodontidae known to be adapted" => "27 species of Tetraodontidae adapted". All species are by definition "described", "known", etc.- Fixed.
The list of rivers is somewhat bewildering even to those of us who've been to Kerala. I suggest that a map with the rivers and water bodies indicated (could be a symbol like a small circle on each one) would be far more readily understood. There are many blank maps ready for use on Commons, or we could draw a new one. (I can lend a hand if you like.)- I would appreciate your help. I tried to approach making one a long time ago, but I didn't know what I was doing.
- Try the attached. The distribution area takes into account all the data in the article; I haven't tried to cite it (on Commons or here) but it ought to be done.
- Map looks accurate. Thank you so much! I'm currently trying to find a way to group all the relevant refs without losing their
names so that I can clean up the 'Distribution and habitat' section and give the map a citation.
- Map looks accurate. Thank you so much! I'm currently trying to find a way to group all the relevant refs without losing their
- Try the attached. The distribution area takes into account all the data in the article; I haven't tried to cite it (on Commons or here) but it ought to be done.
- I would appreciate your help. I tried to approach making one a long time ago, but I didn't know what I was doing.
"The expansive range of their distribution" --- what? "Expansive" could mean "growing" or "all over Eurasia" or something else. Needs rewording.- What about truncating to "Their appearances in small, secluded bodies of water is likely mediated in part by piscivorous birds inadvertently dispersing individuals."?
- In the right direction but the wording is a bit gnarly; aim to be simple and clear.
- Changed. Also changed 'piscivorous birds' to 'waterfowl' as per ref.
- In the right direction but the wording is a bit gnarly; aim to be simple and clear.
- What about truncating to "Their appearances in small, secluded bodies of water is likely mediated in part by piscivorous birds inadvertently dispersing individuals."?
"migratory, or potamodromous" --- well, for a species limited to a small area of one state, this is a surprise. Perhaps the map will clarify things, or perhaps some explanation is needed.- I reworded the sentence. They just swim along rivers, really. Unfortunately, all I can find for info is a book that confirms they migrate, but doesn't give further information on why they do so.
* "also inhabit the Thattekad Bird Sanctuary." Is that on one of the 13 rivers or disjoint from that area? Not clear why one 2007 survey gets all this separate attention, looks WP:UNDUE, and the material about waterfowl looks close to off-topic, if not simply repetitious given "mediated in part by piscivorous birds inadvertently dispersing individuals" just above. Suggest merge it into the main paragraph (and condense it).
- I'm okay with cutting this part entirely. It was added because in a year-old review, someone asked for information on predation. Same goes for the natural defences section.
Diet and behaviour[edit]
"The results of studies indicated dwarf pufferfish favour" => "Dwarf pufferfish favour"Done.
"Cladocera" => "water fleas".- Done.
"Ostracods" => "seed shrimps".- Done.
"the larvae of Odonata, Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, and Diptera,": might be better to say "aquatic larvae such as of ..."- Done. Also changed 'Ephemeroptera' to 'mayflies' and 'Diptera' to 'flies' to align with your other suggestions.
"small snails such as ramshorn snails, bladder snails, and Malaysian trumpet snails" --- not convinced the list of types is justified here, we're not a petshop. Probably being euryphagous they'd eat any small pond snail.- Changed.
"Sand and detritus, presumably ingested by mistake when feeding on small, bottom-dwelling animals, have also been found in the gut of dwarf pufferfish." A bit klunky; why not just drop the "of dwarf pufferfish".- Changed.
"are known to experience" => "experience".- Fixed.
Reproduction[edit]
"with larvae and fry initially fed infusoria, Brachionus, frozen bloodworms, and brine shrimp when they are a week old": better add "in captivity" just before this phrase. Suggest you gloss Brachionus with "rotifers".- Done.
" a mean of 3.15 mm (0.124 in) TL" --- please spell out "total length".- Done.
"will live" => "live".- Done.
Images[edit]
"An adult dwarf pufferfish" --- per the Principle of Some Surprise, suggest you cut the caption down to "Adult": we've been told in large boldface type, three times, that this is a Dwarf pufferfish close to the image already.- Looking at other good articles about fish (Ambassis macleayi, Acanthopagrus butcheri), I think it's safe to remove the caption entirely.
"Dwarf pufferfish have dark, iridescent patches on their flanks and dorsal surfaces" --- seems to apply only to males?- Why do you think it might only be males? As far as I've read, both males and females have iridescent patches. Only males have iridescent 'eye wrinkles'.
"A juvenile dwarf pufferfish in an aquarium" => Suggest you simply say "Juvenile" here, per the above; but you might want to add a brief comment on how it differs from the adult.- Changed. I haven't found descriptions of juveniles in any reliable sources, so any description I give is based on hobbyists' or my own observations, unfortunately.
All images appear to be properly licensed on Commons.
Sources[edit]
The National Geographic source [11] is just about (barely) acceptable, but it does not mention this species. The Seattle Aquarium source [13] is probably even less acceptable really, and it doesn't mention this species either. I think the first paragraph of "Natural defences" is thus close to wandering off-topic. Please cut down the non-dwarf material to the bare minimum. If we can find better sources, then let's replace these two altogether.- Removed Seattle Aquarium, added better sources and information.
Refs [8] and [9] authors should be in Last, First format.- The author's name is T. V. Anna Mercy. 'Anna Mercy' are both attributed as last names. Fixed the other one.
Refs [14] and [38] should use the cite book template.- Fixed.
Ref [33] Froese Pauly seems to be broken. Maybe you can find an archive or other source. However the title as written names C. lorteti so it looks like a mistake to assume that the claim applies also to C. travancoricus?- Removed. It was about C. lorteti.
Ref [40] may be acceptable (German is permitted; it's locatable only with difficulty (aquarium libraries in Germany?), but in theory verifiable) but it's quite unclear that it's necessary here.- Removed.
Did you know nomination[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron talk 22:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- ... that at a maximum standard length of roughly 2 cm (0.8 in), dwarf pufferfish are some of the smallest pufferfish in the world? Source: Santini, F.; Nguyen, M. T. T.; Sorenson, L.; Waltzek, T. B.; Lynch Alfaro, J. W.; Eastman, J. M.; Alfaro, M. E. (May 2013). "Do habitat shifts drive diversification in teleost fishes? An example from the pufferfishes (Tetraodontidae)" "... including the smallest known puffer, C. travancoricus (max length ~2 cm)."
- Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Primium (talk). Self-nominated at 19:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dwarf pufferfish; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Recent (at time of nomination) GA. Article of sufficient length, and copyvio not detected. Images in article are appropriately licensed for the main page. Hook interesting and no QPQ needed for first DYKN. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
