Talk:Pallid sturgeon

Promoted as I was reviewing

The writing needs a good fix throughout. See my changes and inline comments to the lead alone. Tony (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh comeon, the intro should be specific, but it is the intro...the major specifications are detailed in the body of the article. I really absolutely hate inline comments, so I removed them and made a few adjustments in accordance...if you have/had comments there surely is a FAC page where you can list them...and I am sure you have plenty of comments.--MONGO 14:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the header, you would have known that the FAC page had already been archived before Tony had a chance to comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And, if Tony is generous enough to offer advice on an article I suggest it is acted on. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Saw the heading...miffed he waited so long to chime in, and bothered to once again try and throw up a roadblock oppose based on his self appointed belief that he is the only one who must surely know that only his way of writing is the correct way. In the past, I have on occasion adjusted articles based on his comments, but surely not always and especially not in this case, where he makes a mess of the article editing text window with inline comments when the article is already being promoted. In my eyes, having the article featured is way less important than it being excellent...if it isn't excellent, then feel free to send it to FAR. There he can further discuss how he thinks it is lacking and shouldn't be featured.--MONGO 15:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I know Tony has been busy with the admin watch thing. On the other hand, the article was listed at FAC for nearly five weeks, which I think is plenty of time for people to give input and review. --Aude (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there a WP convention or definitive source supporting the capitalization of "pallid" in the name? I spot-checked a number of the cited works, including some from USFWS and USDA, and in all of them the name is lower-cased (save in titles where other words are capitalized as well). Unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, I'd suggest that the article do the same.

--Ammodramus (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned it up..it should reflect the points you mentioned.--MONGO 03:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I saw that you'd reverted some edits lowercasing the words, and that you'd put some effort into the article; so I thought it'd be better to discuss before re-lowercasing. --Ammodramus (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated...the IP editor did lower case some of the wording, but missed a few too and not looking at it as well as I should have, reverted his/her work, which I shouldn't have done without better scrutiny.--MONGO 02:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hydrology and usage issues

I've noticed a couple of other issues in this article that I'd like to bring to the attention of someone who knows more about the subject than I—

• There appears to be inconsistency in the usage of "sturgeon" vs. "sturgeons" as the plural noun. In the section "Reproduction and life cycle", for instance, I find "Pallid sturgeons have a long lifespan" in the first paragraph; then, in the second paragraph, "pallid sturgeon migrated hundreds of miles".

• The third-to-last paragraph of the article, beginning "In the lower reaches of the Platte River", deals with the lower reaches of the Platte in its first half; however, then there's a discussion of water releases from Gavins Point Dam (which is on the Missouri, and which will therefore have very little effect on the lower Platte). Should this paragraph be split in two; and would it be advisable to remind the reader that Gavins Point is on the Missouri?

--Ammodramus (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure...there is always ways to make my prose better. I did the bulk of the work on the article in my bid to get it to featured level, but prose is not my forte. I had others do a lot of cleanup and your improvements sound more than helpful, so feel free to make appropriate adjustments. I'll try andf get the cites cleaned up some too as a few are apparently dead. I already went around last year and cleaned up two other FA's I worked on, so this is about due as well. Appreciate your involvement.--MONGO 02:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)