Talk:Little tunny
![]() | Little tunny received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was intensively edited as a Fall 2010 / Spring 2011 educational assignment: WikiProject AP Biology 2010. We invite you to join us to make further improvements and changes. We are not claiming any sort of ownership. This is a project in collaboration. |
finest trash fish
editIt seems odd that "finest game fish" and "trash fish" are both used to describe this species. I note that "After lunch I hung around the kitchen a while, listening to Wolfe and Fritz Brenner, the chef and household jewel, arguing whether horse mackerel is as good as Mediterranean tunny fish for vitello tonnato-which, as prepared by Fritz, is the finest thing on earth to do with tender young veal." on Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe novel "And Be a Villain" The horse mackerel article makes similarly libelous comments about that fish. I suppose there's been a lot of devolution since 1950? 12.193.238.99 (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
References
editPlease post any useful and credible references for the advancement of this article in this area of the talk page.--M rickabaugh (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Potential References List |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Would this be a viable reference? http://www.iccat.int/Documents/SCRS/Manual/CH2/2_1_11_5_LTA_ENG.pdfArtemis Gray (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- This seems to look promising, but we should probably go deeper to some of the articles cited in the bibliography, this is a great find though.--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, looks like a pretty comprehensive article (notice how on page 236 specific locations are given for its distribution, this information would be great to put in the article).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
External links
editI deleted the external links has they didn't appear to have direct relevance to the topic. And, Wikipedia isn't a directory so it is best to keep external links to a minimum. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was tempted to do that but I didn't know if someone needed them (?). But, I guess if that was the case (s)he could have put them in the "potential references" template above. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Range Map?
editIf someone has tips on how to make range maps, or they know of a good tutorial for them, please let me know. This is fairly important to the article. Thanks --M rickabaugh (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Range maps are tough to create. If you have a reference that is accessible online, you could leave a new post either here or here. Simply create a new section by copy and pasting the premade code at the top and filling out the appropriate information (usually just article name, source, and what you want done...in this case a range map). If you have trouble doing this, let me know. Hope this helps (btw, if you have photoshop and are good with it, you could likely make your own map...just make sure you site your work).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
question
edit"The little tunny commonly feeds in large schools because their primary food sources (small fish and developing crustaceans) are typically in schools as well."--Is "school" the group form of crustaceans?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Its the developing form, like a larval form, before the shells have grown thick. I probably should have phrased it better. --M rickabaugh (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. :-} NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
An early Thanksgiving present
editHere are some sources that go into excrutiating detail but may prove to be helpful:
- Some may be inaccessible to you, but I don't know. Hope they are useful in some way.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is great! I've been having trouble finding some things, but i think i was looking in the wrong places. I cant access links 1 or 3, but the pdf and #4 are going to be immensely helpful. I'm going to be updating a lot tomorrow, and hopefully every day this week. Thank you so much for the assistance. --M rickabaugh (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Sorry about numbers 1 and 3 (University server, I'll try to get it hashed out). Here's another one I've stumbled across: [5]. If you need any more help just let me know. Happy editing! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is great! I've been having trouble finding some things, but i think i was looking in the wrong places. I cant access links 1 or 3, but the pdf and #4 are going to be immensely helpful. I'm going to be updating a lot tomorrow, and hopefully every day this week. Thank you so much for the assistance. --M rickabaugh (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Anatomical Goldmine?
editIve found an article from the California Department of Fish and Game [6]. It is somewhat old, but it contains more anatomical information than I could have imagined. If someone could look at this, see if it looks valid, that would be great. It looks like a good source, but I need to know if the age of the information is ok. Thanks!--M rickabaugh (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Also, how should cite info I got from one source, but its in 2 different places?--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is indeed a good source. I wouldn't include too too much about organs and such, as you don't want to get too specific (but a lot of info from this article is usable). If you're citing something from two different pages within the same article, you may want to include two separate citations. Regards, --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasnt planning on going to deep into the anatomy, just hilighting some of the more interesting things, like differences between the little tunny and other species.--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's good. Use what you think is encyclopedic. :-] NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasnt planning on going to deep into the anatomy, just hilighting some of the more interesting things, like differences between the little tunny and other species.--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Measurements
editConcerning the inclusion of measurements, they should really be put in a template that converts them for you (rather than including a conversion in parenthesis). Not a huge or urgent problem or anything. Here's where you can find out how to do what I'm talking about: Template:Convert. Regards, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments
editThere is no standard for whether a species name should be treated as a name, with capital inital, or not. But there is a standard convention that species names should be treated consistently within each article with regard to this. This article starts out with Little Tunny, but most of the occurrences are little tunny. Choose one convention and use it consistently.
Does "small species" mean that there are few individuals or that individuals are small in average?
What are the principles for sorting facts between "Physical description" and "Anatomy"?
"eu" is greek for good. I do not disagree with this. But I think it is only half the story. The article Eudicots says that "eu" means true. This is more understandable to me. In the case of dicots, first all plants with two cotyledons were classed together by this criterion. The botanists realized that some of the dicotyledons had branched away earlier from the main group (in numbers) than the monocotyledons. They then defined a new (true) group of dicotyledons, excluding the largest group of dicots that were all more closely related to each other than the monocots. This group was called the Eudicotyledons. They are not really more truly di-cotyledonic. But they are more truly a group. I suspect that eu-thynnus are those that not only look like tunas, but also truly belong to the monophyletict group.
release multiple batches of eggs; they can release as many as 1,750,000 Several batches in a day or several batches in a year or ...? 1,750,000 eggs per batch, in a day or in a year or ...?
--Ettrig (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer/questions. Ive taken care of the differences in the names, so they all read "little tunny", as well as clarifying what I meant by small. I am not sure exactly how to separate into anatomy or physical description, and i may make anatomy a subheading under the physical description. As for the more in depth root of the name, I see what you mean. I will research this some more, and update the article based on what I find.--M rickabaugh (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good, it is nice to get feed-back on the comments. --Ettrig (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
A Note to Future Editing
editOver this past weekend as I was working on the article, I noticed some things that need to be addressed in regards to edits. I have noticed information already present in the article being duplicated or re-worded into non-scientific terms. It would be helpful to the article if, before you update, you read the section you wish to update, and double check that the information you wish to add is not already present. As for the re-wording, I think that using the proper scientific terms is important, as well as making text to the point. I have also noted a relative lack of citations on some sections that have been added. These may have simply been an oversight, but it is still important to cite any and all of the information you gather and put in the article from outside sources. I've fixed some of these things, but I'm not sure if I have found them all. --M rickabaugh (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Photographs
editPhotos are needed - time to seek outside contributions and beg for copyrights.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have some that are from a family friend, but I am not sure if they are totally suitable because none of them are of just the fish, they have other people in them as well.--M rickabaugh (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe they can be cropped[?]. Or, a class member could snap a photo of one at an aquarium or something.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can crop some of them. I'll check with the Pine Knoll Shore's Aquarium, but as far as I know the little tunny isn't kept in captivity because of its tendency to school.--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Makes sense.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can crop some of them. I'll check with the Pine Knoll Shore's Aquarium, but as far as I know the little tunny isn't kept in captivity because of its tendency to school.--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe they can be cropped[?]. Or, a class member could snap a photo of one at an aquarium or something.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Some comments
edit- The lead says that the little tunny is not a migratory species. However the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in Annex 1 lists the little tunny as a highly migratory species.Text
- Fishbase is an acceptable and useful source, and can be marked up using this template:
- {{fishbase species |genus=Euthynnus |species=alletteratus |month=April |year=2010}}
- which renders as:
- Froese, Rainer; Pauly, Daniel (eds.). "Euthynnus alletteratus". FishBase. April 2010 version.
--Epipelagic (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the issue with the tuna being a migratory species, that was part of the original stub, and I think it was just overlooked. However, it is migratory reference is saying that the little tunny tends to be less migratory than other tuna species, so I will do some research before I make any significant changes.
- As for the Fishbase Reference, this seems like it will be really helpful to us for future updates. --M rickabaugh (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12251/en From the tuna and tuna-like species, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea classifies the principal market tunas, billfishes, blackfin, bullet and frigate tuna, little tunny and kawakawa as highly migratory regardless that particularly the last two species are mostly neritic. Perhaps this is significant.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good find. Best to get all kinks like this worked out before PR. The article is well on it's way!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12251/en From the tuna and tuna-like species, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea classifies the principal market tunas, billfishes, blackfin, bullet and frigate tuna, little tunny and kawakawa as highly migratory regardless that particularly the last two species are mostly neritic. Perhaps this is significant.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The comment I posted earlier today is now totally wrong, so I've removed it. I didn't think to click on the links to the sources, because thats where all the information lies, if I can locate the original journals or pdf files. --M rickabaugh (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Distribution
editIs the distribution shown here correct? Are there other sources that say differently? If not, the current map may have to be changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- The map I created is drawn with information I have compiled from written sources. The map in that link is inaccurate because the little tunny is only found in the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, and on rare occasions in the Red Sea. The latitude boundaries I set are the farthest points they have been recorded north and south of the equator.--M rickabaugh (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- If that map is so wrong, it makes one wonder what other things in that source are wrong. Are we sure it's reliable?NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll check it out, and compare it to the ICCAT source we have, most of the things that were in it went in line with the ICCAT source, but I'll go back and double check. --M rickabaugh (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll check it out, and compare it to the ICCAT source we have, most of the things that were in it went in line with the ICCAT source, but I'll go back and double check. --M rickabaugh (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- If that map is so wrong, it makes one wonder what other things in that source are wrong. Are we sure it's reliable?NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
My concerns
editAlthough the following list may seem long, fear not, for it is only a grammar sweep.
Show at own risk.
|
---|
|
- Feel free to fight me on any of these, I make mistakes too. :-) If you've addressed a concern, please strike it (
like this). Monitoring all the small changes and checking back with my list will create a headache I don't have the time or the medication for. Thank you! :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC) - is it necessary to link everything that is linkable?--Artemis Gray (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not everything no. Only more advanced or unclear things. Typically 2% to 5% or words have a link. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Citations?
editI'm currently trying to work on peer review edits, and it seems like whenever I'm on a new anchor citation is up, but it isn't linked to any particular section in the text of the article, like its there for no reason? It would be great if they could be linked to where they are supposed to go, they are practically useless if I do not know where they belong. Thanks.--M rickabaugh (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right, oftentimes anchored texts are linked down to by the items in your 'footnotes' list. It's really all for the reader, but if papers are anchored without being used in the article, it will become confusing for all.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment
editGlad to see content being added, but concerning this edit, it's a bit how-toish. See this page for further information. Don't let this deter you, keep adding material!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
References
editJust putting these here, it's a better place for them:
http://www.ncfisheries.net/statistics/comstat/tunny.htm
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=127017
http://www.scialert.net/abstract/?doi=jfas.2011.256.263&linkid-abst
http://scialert.net/qredirect.php?doi=jfas.2011.256.263&linkid=pdf
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2007/05/26/icesjms.fsm065.full.pdf
Continuous improper citations
editRecently there have been a lot of citations added with the anchors embedded in the article. The anchors belong in the cited text section, only, because they are "anchors" so multiple references can be based on them. The citations in the text should be in the Harnvb Format. If you do not know what it is, look at the other citations in the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M rickabaugh (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- A note to all students
Just anchoring citations at the bottom of the article may be worse...I repeat...worse than not citing your work at all! Anchor only the references that have pages (books, pdfs, journals) and generate the Harnvb citations based on that anchor. It's hard to do at first, but if you're struggling, leave a note here, there are multiple people watching this page.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)