Talk:Murray cod

Murray cod 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 3, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

Fishes Mid‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Murray cod is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Article Title

Please note that where a species of animal has a reasonably widely accepted common name, the agreed rule is that we use that as the title of the article. the Murray Cod certainly has such a name, so I have reverted the article to that name (also putting it in Initial Caps style while I was at it). seglea 04:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Disappearing Reference

Why did the reference Rowland (1989) disappear??? Codman 01:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. It's still there. Codman 01:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image in the taxobox of this article is very poor, see comments on Image talk:Murray Cod.png - Nick Thorne 11:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pov-check

I've tagged this article to garner opinions on the writing style. I find much of it has an overly zealous tone which detracts from an otherwise comprehensive and detailed article. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems well written to me. What you seem to be regarding as "over zealousness" can alternatively be described as an accurate depiction of the plight of an animal that is under significant threat from a number of stressors, which are listed. What, exactly, are you objecting to?Nick Thorne 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unwarranted nomination. If fisheries departments and their regulations are not conserving wild Murray cod populations adequately, and there is hard scientific evidence to support this, then it is perfectly reasonable to state this. Codman 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

This is a really well detailed article - good job to the editors! I have just been to the importance scale site and saw that codman was worried about bulking up the article with refs, but did it anyway. An easier, and less bulky way to ref is ^[1]. I have included this fake reference (just open the edit page for this discussion to see what I have done), but as you can see it only shows up as this small number (which is different to that of an external link number). Whats more is that once you have written this, all you need to input for the actual reference section is:

===References=== (i have used a small heading only for the purpose of this example)

^ title of page or article Title of Site, journal or book Retrieved 5 February 2007

(again you will need to look at the edit page to see what I have done) and all the refs in the article will be automatically numbered and listed in the reference section (ie: once you have added a small bit of code to the refs section you don't need to touch it again even if you ad extra refs because they will be listed automatically). Tinkstar1985 06:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

taste and cooking?

It's a really well done article. For those of us from NA, like to know a bit more about what it tastes like? Like a cod? Like a trout?

Ź==Good Article nomination on hold== This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of August 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

some fixes needed:

Lead:

The lead should be a "concise overview of the article" (see WP:LS); as of now it is not.
The origin of the scientific name of Murray cod should not be mentioned only in the intro; it should also be mentioned under Taxonomy.

Description:

Murray cod are a large grouper-like fish with a deep, elongated body that is round in cross section: change to "Murray cod are large grouper-like fish with deep, elongated bodies that are round in cross section."
Wikilink grouper, dorsal fin

Related Species:

while trout cod stray (or did stray)- meaning that they no longer do?

Taxonomy:

Originally only one species of cod was recognised — Murray cod — then named Maccullochella macquariensis. - Change to "Originally only one species of cod was recognised, the Murray cod, whic was then named Maccullochella macquariensis."

Range:

~700m elevation in the southern half of the basin and to ~1000m in the northern half of the basin - get rid of the "~" signs and use "about" or "approximately" instead.
Murray cod played a very important role in the mythology of many Aboriginal tribes- why is this in the range section? Can be placed in a "relationship with humans" section near "Conservation".
Murray cod played- past tense? it no longer plays a role in their mythology? If so, why not?
All the pieces become all the other fish species of the river- change to "The pieces become all the other fish species of the river"
In these myths the fleeing Murray cod and the beating of its tail enlarges the river and creates the bends in it. change to "In these myths, the fleeing Murray cod, and the beating of its tail, enlarges the river and creates the bends in it. "

Size:

add nonbreaking spaces ( ) between each number and its unit.
units need imperial conversions in parentheses
metric units should be spelled out (cm to centimetres)
Entire section can be integrated into "Description" section.
Murray cod are large fish with adult fish...- change to "Murray cod are large fish, with adult fish...."
Large breeding fish are rare in most wild populations today due to...- change to "Large breeding fish are rare in most wild populations today, due to...."
and the even larger specimens of yester-year leave us in no doubt change yester-year to another more encyclopedic word, and don't use the word "us". Could perhaps be written something like "And even larger specimens caught in years past show that the species reaches ages of 70 or more years
anything smaller than itself including finned fish to "anything smaller than itself, including finned fish"
a demersal ambush predator either wikilink or explain what the term means.

Reproduction

Therefore roughly 70% comma after "therefore"
will have egg counts of around <10,000 get rid of the "<" symbol, or spell it out.
Egg counts in female Murray cod of all sizes are relatively low compared to many fish species. merge into the paragraph before it, no 1 sentence paragraphs.
photoperiod (daylight length). add a piped link to Photoperiodism.
Initially spring floods and temperatures of 20–21° C were considered necessary... by who?
Murray cod are main channel specialists meaning what?
until recently spring flooding has been considered critical for successful recruitment- second time the article mentions this.
until recently spring flooding has been considered change "has been" to "was"
macroinverebrates change to "macroinvertebrates"
This information also suggests that:...than first thought. get rid of the bullets, just use commas.
Merge the last two paragraphs in the section.

Conservation:

get rid of the bulleting, use paragraphs instead.
Weirs killing Murray cod larvae and juveniles- what are Weirs?
the most important issues effecting change "effecting" to "affecting"
of cod populations such as the need for spring floods and excessive angler take are yet to be addressed. commas after "population" and "take".

In Aquariums:

Change "Whilst" to "While"
A temperature of 24° C however comma after 24° C.
enable fast (optimum) growth, if a large size is undesireable, why would it be "optimum" growth? Do you mean maximum growth rate?
...keeps most pathogens ("diseases") at bay just say "pathogens" and wikilink it.
to white-spot or "ich" and fungal skin infections do you mean "itch"? if it's a colloquialism, just say "white-spot and fungal skin infections". and wikilink "fungal infection" (Mycosis).

2. Factually accurate?:

Description and coloration need to be sourced
Colouration is related to water clarity- needs to be sourced
being such adaptable, versatile and successful fish- needs a source
Related Species needs be sourced
Taxonomy needs to be sourced

Range: the naming of the cod after the river needs to be referenced, as does the fact that the Murray-Darling Basin is Australia's largest and most important river system, the 13% statistic, and the fact that it is in Aboriginal mythology.

Size needs to be referenced.
Large breeding fish are rare in most wild populations today due to excessive angler take and inadequate fishing regulations. needs a reference
Age: needs a reference for Australian fish being long-lived, Murray cod being the longest lived in Australia, longevity as a survival strategy, and spawning being linked to La Niña years.
A recent study has confirmed that fish make up the majority of the diet of Murray cod in lowland river and impoundment habitats, and that Murray cod are indeed apex predators in these habitats. remove the "recent study" part, instead incorporate it into into the sentence before and use the study as your source.
The observations of the many recreational fishermen now fishing for Murray cod with surface lures at night reveal- cite. And "many" is a relative term; if you want to use many, you have to say how many and give a source.
Overall, this data strongly indicates that the 50 cm size limit for Murray cod is inadequate and should be increased substantially to allow greater chance of reproduction before capture. Source it, or it's original research.
"in their prime"- source
Egg counts in female Murray cod of all sizes are relatively low compared to many fish species. reference it.
Decades of observations by recreational and commercial fishermen suggest such spring spawning migrations are common across the Murray cod's geographical range.- Reference
During this dispersal process .... microinvertebrates.- reference.
These findings do not deliver river regulation and water extraction....other native fish. Source
It is estimated somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of the...- source.
In "Conservation", each of the paragraphs/bulleted facts needs a source.
There are now grave concerns for the long term survival of wild Murray cod populations.-source
Murray cod are intelligent fish and make immensively attractive, rewarding and responsive aquarium fish. definitely need a source. Oh, and change "immensively" to "immensely".
"In Aquariums", each paragraph and any numbers or statistics need to be sourced.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Yes.

4. Neutral point of view?:

striking and extremely beautiful colouration calling a fish "beautiful" is a value judgement and thus not neutral point of view.
Nevertheless, the basic pattern of speciation into a primarily lowland species and a specialist upland species is clear.- clear to who? it's a value judgment.
These findings do not deliver river regulation and water extraction from blame however — river regulation has been a major factor in the decline of Murray cod and other native fish. "from blame" is an accusatory tone, and does not show npov.
spawning period, during which anglers are not allowed to target Murray cod, even on a catch and release basis. is the bold text there for any particular reason?
..but the most important issues... most important according to who? cite an expert, or change the wording.
It is widely agreed by everyone who has kept a Murray cod in an aquarium that they are fish with "real personalities". "Widely agreed" is a weasel word. "real personalities" is a matter of opinion.

5. Article stability?

Yes.

6. Images?:

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.

I have edited the document extensively taking your comments as a guide. Please feel free to suggest any more changes that you think are appropriate or if I have misinterpreted your advice. Thanks for reviewing the article. Nick Thorne ^talk 05:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have picked up all the typos I introduced in my first 6 hour editing session, please let me know if I have missed anything. As I said ealier I appreciate the effort put in to review this page, so I am trying to do justice to your work and to the article. Nick Thorne ^talk 10:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Thank you for your work so far. I can see that you've put a lot of work into the article. A some more fixes:

Wikilinking:

All locations should be linked the first time they appear in a section.
Siltation, overfishing, weirs, and arsenic should be linked in "Range", and Substrates should be linked to Substrate (marine biology). Done
Apex predator should be linked in "Diet", and the redlink on Boney bream should be removed.
In "Reproduction", Macroinvertebrates should be wikilinked to Invertebrate, and Thermal pollution should be wikilinked. Done
In "Conservation", wikilink the Murray-Darling Basin and Murray river at the beginning of the section, since it's a new section. Also link irrigation, tributaries, ecosystems, overfishing, thermal pollution, siltation, riparian, fauna, biomass, remove the link on year classes. Done
In Aquariums, link quarantine, sea salt, iodine, pH, and alkaline. Done

Prose/Grammar:

intro:

"..in the spring generally being laid in hollow logs..." change to "..in the spring and generally laid in hollow logs..." Done

Description:

in the sentence "In Murray cod the jaws are equal or the lower jaw protrudes slightly", I think it would sound better if written "The jaws of the Murray cod are equal, or the lower jaw protrudes slightly.", and the same for "In Murray cod the spiny dorsal fin...". Just a personal preference, though. Done

Size:

write measurements with the metric unit spelled out and the imperial unit abbreviated. For example, instead of "reaching 80–100 cm (32–39")", "reaching 80–100 centimetres (32–39 in)". This applies to the rest of the article as well. "Large breeding fish are rare in most wild populations today."- remove the word "today", it's already clear that you're talking about the present-day. Done

Related Species:

change "species, with Murray cod being the primarily lowland species and the endangered trout cod being the specialist upland species." to "species; Murray cod are the primarily lowland species and the endangered trout cod are the specialist upland species." Done
In "because, being such adaptable, versatile and successful fish", remove versatile, as it's a synonym for adaptable, ad remove "such", as it's unnecessary. Done
In the sentence "in southern Queensland but are now extinct", add a comma after Queensland. Oh, and wikilink "Queensland". Done

no wiki link on Queensland required here, because there is one in the previous sentence.Nick Thorne ^talk 13:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy:

in the sentence "with the surname McCulloch and for the" add a comma after "McCulloch".

Adding a comma before and IIRC is not correct English grammar. Nick Thorne ^talk 13:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spell out NSW, since readers outside Australia might not know what it stands for. (and wikilink it.) Done
In the sentence "Subsequently two further cod...", add a comma after "Subsequently". Done
In "with the later causing Murray cod...", I think "later" should be "latter"? Done
In the same sentence, there is a parenthese at the end, but no parenthese at the beginning. In the final sentence, add a comma after "eastern freshwater cod". Done

Range:

in "but extending well into upland areas; to about", change the semicolon to a dash. Done
In the sentence "Unfortunately, Murray cod have died out of many of their upland habitats, particularly in the southern Murray-Darling Basin", you don't have to point out that it is unfortunate, and doing so is against neutrality policy. Done

Age:

"Murray cod continue the trend of native fish of southeast Australia being incredibly long-lived" change to "Murray cod are incredibly long-lived, which is characteristic of native fish of southeast Australia." or something along those lines. Done

Diet:

Change "during the day, Murray cod at night are active..." to "during the day, at night Murray cod are active..." Done

Reproduction:

"between 4 and 6 years of age."- spell out numbers under ten. Done
in the sentence "with their faster growth rates, do not reach sexual maturity until well over 60 cm in length", either add "they are" after "until" or remove "their" after "with". Done
In the sentence "because they produce the most eggs and for other reasons;>" add a comma after "eggs" and delete the ">" after the semicolon.

I'm still not prepared to put commas before and. Can't find the ">", I think codman may have fixed this Nick Thorne ^talk 13:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Spawning is initiated by pairing up and courtship rituals"- "pairing up" sounds unencyclopedic.

I believe "pairing up" is the term usually used by fish biologists, I would prefer to let it standNick Thorne ^talk 13:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In "The male remains to guard the eggs during incubation, which takes 6–10 days", change "6–10 days" to "six to ten days". Done
Change "behaviour for aound 4–7 days." to "behaviour for around four to seven days." In the last paragraph, unitalicise "can". Done

Conservation:

"and other Murray-Darling native fish was, not surprisingly,...."- remove "not surprisingly", if it's not surprising, it shouldn't have to be pointed out.

Changed not surprisingly to of course, removed commas. Point needs to be made because often people forget that adaption to natural conditions in the norm.Nick Thorne ^talk 13:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course" is a word mentioned specifically in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The sentence "The breeding of Murray cod and other Murray-Darling native fish was adapted to these natural flow patterns." informs the reader of the same facts, without going against wikipedia policy. --Jude. 18:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Done[reply]

The section would flow better if the bolded first lines were removed, and the section was formatted into regular paragraphs like the rest of the article. It could perhaps be organized with "Reductions in flood duration,River regulation for irrigation, and Excessive water extraction" in one paragraph talking about the impact regulation of water flow has had on the fish, "De-snagging, Overfishing,Thermal pollution,Barriers to migration, Weirs killing Murray cod larvae and juveniles, Siltation, Removal of riparian vegetation" in a paragraph about other manmade changes to the environment, and "introduced carp and introduced disease" in a paragraph about the negative impact of introduced species.

I get a lot of questions from school children and so on about the causes of the demise of Murray cod and other native fish. I think that the current structure, although I agree that it does not "flow" as such, it better allows readers to quickly identify the main causative factors and then read those that interest them. I would prefer to leave the current structure of this section as it is.Nick Thorne ^talk 13:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one sentence-paragraphs, of which are are five, are a problem, as is the bolding of the first line. If your intent is to allow people to quickly identify the main causative factors, then a possibility would be to group the causes into subsections by related topics, so that readers could identify the general causes not only by looking at the section, but also in the table of contents. Cheers, Jude. 18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will have a go at re-doing this section, however I do not understand your problem with one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph is not a collection of sentences, but rather one or more logically connected sentences about a single idea. Some ideas can be fully stated without needing to go to more than one sentence and so a single sentence is appropriate. Nevertheless, what I intend is to restructure this into a series of sub sections, If I can combine two or more of the single sentence paragraphs onto one, without losing the granularity of the ideas I will do so.Nick Thorne ^talk 07:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Done[reply]

One sentence paragraphs break the flow of the article and hinder readability. I assume you're going to nominate the article for FA eventually, and you'd be asked to eliminate 1-sentence paragraphs there as well. Anyway, thank you very much for changing it, and it looks great.Jude. 23:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence "The following exotic disease organisms all seriously affect wild Murray cod; all have been introduced by reckless imports of exotic fish.", remove the bolding on exotic and introduced. also, the characterization "reckless" is pov. Done
"Some light has been made of two small surveys"- I'm not sure quite what this is trying to say- These studies have shed some light? Done

Aquariums:

"At a minimum, disinfect all live food for 1 hour in a 10 gram per litre salt solution before feeding"- spell out "one hour" Done
"Watching one of these predatory native fish ambush"- it's only native if the reader lives in Australia. Done

References required

Referencing:References are needed for

Size:

"Large breeding fish are rare in most wild populations today."

Moved to quarantine

Done

Related Species:

the pattern of "speciation into lowland and specialist upland species", Done
the extinction of Coastal cod in the Richmond River system and the Brisbane River system. Done

Taxonomy:

the origin of the species name Done
that the Mary River cod might be a sub-species of eastern freshwater cod. Done

Range:

the fact that the Murray cod's natural range encompasses virtually the whole Murray-Darling Basin. Done

Age:

"native fish of southeast Australia being incredibly long-lived" Done

Slighty changed wordine to reflect reference.Nick Thorne ^talk 08:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diet:

"Murray cod at night are active pelagic predators" Done

Reproduction:

"Such large females may also have valuable, successful genes to pass on."

moved to quarantine

Done

"and that decades of overfishing is playing a far larger role in the current state of Murray cod stocks, through depletion of spawning adults, than first thought." Done
"copious evidence that the health of Australian lowland river ecosystems generally rely on periodic spring flooding." Done
"Excessive water extraction, meanwhile, has caused numerous fish kills in recent years."

Moved to quarantine

Done

"The long term viability of wild Murray cod, other native fish species and river ecosystems, in the face of this fact, are of great concern." Done

Conservation:

"Snags are also critical for .... in-stream productivity." Done
"The current size limit of 50 cm i...sexual maturity in Murray cod" Done
"Although angler effects are....point of non-existence in many waters." Done
"A tightening of fishing regulations ... alleviate this problem." Done
"Important issues affecting restoration ....the National Recovery Plan when it is completed." Done

Aquariums:

"In heatwave conditions ...far above usual levels."

Moved to quarantine

Done

"Unlike many freshwater fish, Murray cod are highly tolerant of salt ...extreme drought" Done
"With soft skin... skin infections. " Done
the paragraph that begins "A common complaint voiced about small Murray cod in aquariums ..." Done

If you like, you can mark Done next to each bulleted point as you finish it. Cheers, Jude. 22:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewer...

Dear Reviewer

Not withstanding the copious and dedicated work my colleague Nick has put in to wikifying this page, as the primary author of this page I must point out the following on some of your edit suggestions:

"Spawning is initiated by pairing up and courtship rituals"- "pairing up" sounds unencyclopedic.

Pairing up is an accepted term in fish biology, and used in scientific papers on fish biology, so this term must stay.

In the sentence "The following exotic disease organisms all seriously affect wild Murray cod; all have been introduced by reckless imports of exotic fish.", remove the bolding on exotic and introduced. also, the characterization "reckless" is pov.

In this case, reckless is an accurate descriptor, not a POV. Imports of exotic fish in the 1800s into Australia were reckless.

I'm afraid I agree that although the actions can easily be described as reckless - IMO they certainly were, I agree that it has the look and feel of an NPOV violation, so I have removed the word. Any reader is still going to get the message.Nick Thorne ^talk 13:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing:References are needed for

Size: "Large breeding fish are rare in most wild populations today."

Related Species: the pattern of "speciation into lowland and specialist upland species", Done the extinction of Coastal cod in the Richmond River system and the Brisbane River system Taxonomy: the origin of the species name that the Mary River cod might be a sub-species of eastern freshwater cod. Range: the fact that the Murray cod's natural range encompasses virtually the whole Murray-Darling Basin. Age: "native fish of southeast Australia being incredibly long-lived" Diet: "Murray cod at night are active pelagic predators" Reproduction: "Such large females may also have valuable, successful genes to pass on." "and that decades of overfishing is playing a far larger role in the current state of Murray cod stocks, through depletion of spawning adults, than first thought." "copious evidence that the health of Australian lowland river ecosystems generally rely on periodic spring flooding." "Excessive water extraction, meanwhile, has caused numerous fish kills in recent years." "The long term viability of wild Murray cod, other native fish species and river ecosystems, in the face of this fact, are of great concern." Conservation: "Snags are also critical for .... in-stream productivity." "The current size limit of 50 cm i...sexual maturity in Murray cod" "Although angler effects are....point of non-existence in many waters." "A tightening of fishing regulations ... alleviate this problem."

All of these points are copiously referenced. Anyone who wanted more information on any these points would find them if they followed up the references provided. Honestly, this is an astonishingly well-referenced article and more references are not needed.

"Important issues affecting restoration...the National Recovery Plan when it is completed." Aquariums: "In heatwave conditions ...far above usual levels." "Unlike many freshwater fish, Murray cod are highly tolerant of salt ...extreme drought" "With soft skin... skin infections. " the paragraph that begins "A common complaint voiced about small Murray cod in aquariums ..."

These are the experiences of aquarists that keep Murray cod. Unfortunately no publications have been released which discuss the preferences of Murray cod in aquaria to any serious degree. So what do we do? This information is useful for people and valid, even if it can't be linked to publications.

Codman 10:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Codman

"Pairing up": I hadn't realized that it was a biological term, so thank you for pointing this out to me.

"reckless imports of exotic fish": Using the word "reckless" violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The import of exotic fish in the 1800s was reckless, but the reader is able to realize that for himself when he/she sees the negative impact that it has had on the Murray cod population.

"References are needed for..." if the references are already in the article, then just add the <ref name = "X"> tag to whatever fact is also found in that reference. I didn't mean to imply that new references must be found, just that they must be placed next to specific facts. This is so that "anyone who wanted more information on any these points" would know which specific book or article to look at.
"These are the experiences of aquarists...": as far as the fact that "Important issues..., should be dealt with in the National Recovery Plan when it is completed.", the first half of the sentence is fine, it's just the "should be dealt with" part that's a problem. It needs an expert source, otherwise it's just an editor writing that it should be addressed. "In heatwave conditions...", if it doesn't have a source, I think that this sentence shouldn't be included. It's important that Murray cod aren't tolerant of heat, but a specific heatwave that has impacted Murray cod in aquariums isn't that necessary for a reader to know. "Murray cod are highly tolerant of salt..." if there's a source which was used for the figure in "a salinity of 2 grams per litre", then that would be fine. "With soft skin... skin infections" A source that talks about skin infections in soft-skinned fish in general would be fine. "A common complaint voiced about small Murray cod in aquariums ..." If it is a "common complaint", then there should be a source for it. And whether they are "rewarding"- well, compared to what other fish? It's also a matter of opinion, as they wouldn't be particularly rewarding to someone who doesn't like fish. Paragraph could be written: In the first few months of life, small Murray cod in aquariums will not show themselves during the day. However, they generally suddenly gain confidence upon reaching a certain size, becoming inquisitive and responsive.

I hope these comments were helpful to you, and if you have any other issues or questions about my suggestions, don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers, Jude. 11:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The only alternative I see for saying "reckless imports of introduced fish" would be to say something like "imports of introduced fish that also imported many disease organisms that now seriously affect native fish." This of course makes it clear that the import were reckless. But it's a clumsy way of doing IMHO compared to just calling it what it was — reckless. (I think the whole NPOV can be taken too far.)

See my comments aboveNick Thorne ^talk 13:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the aquarium-keeping information, you have to understand that in terms of research, management and publications our Murray-Darling native fish have been shockingly neglected in favour of exotic fish until the last couple of decades (in fact, the introduced-fish-cringe continues in many ways) and so there really is a dearth of published information on keeping them in aquariums. This is especially so for Murray cod, which weren't available, and people didn't keep in aquariums, until the last couple of decades. I could hunt around and find a very second-rate aquarium book that gives Murray cod a one-line mention, and contains no real information, and is therefore not worth referencing, or I could hunt around and find some technical aquaculture references for water parameters for Murray cod in aquaculture operations, which really are very inapplicable. Considering these issues, and the enormous amount of work I have (and my colleague Nick has) put into this page, it is probably reasonable to let this section be. A compromise would be to put an explanatory sentence or two at the start of the section explaining that "as the practice of keeping Murray cod as aquarium fish is relatively recent, there are currently no worthwhile publications providing detailed information on keeping Murray cod in aquariums. Therefore the following information is based on the informal experiences of a number of native fish aquarists..." Codman 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with codman, the state of published info about Australian native fish in aquarium culture is virtually non-existant. In fact after working on this page the last few days I have decided that I need to greatly expand aquarium info on the Murray cod page on the Native Fish Australia web site and I will be doing this soon. No help here, though.Nick Thorne ^talk 13:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning the section with an sentence saying that "the following information is based on the informal experiences of a number of native fish aquarists..." would be more or less an announcement that the section is based on original research, which is defined as "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." 2a of the Good Article critera states that a Good Article cannot contain original research. If the article contains original research, I cannot pass it. --Jude. 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the original research restriction, and I do not plan to introduce such a statement to the article. I am currently seeing what I can dig up to provide the necessary external references for this section, it may be that we will have to significantly curtail the info here until further information is published, or I can find up to date reference material. Not my preferred option, but it may be a necessary evil.Nick Thorne ^talk 05:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's valuable and accurate information, and readers shouldn't miss out on it simply because nobody has bothered to collate and publish it in a formal publication. The easiest way forward is publish this information on the Native Fish Australia website first, then place it in the Murray cod article where it is now, and use the NFA site as a reference for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.131 (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we do have to follow the principle of deriving all information in Wikipedia from other sources, preferabley primary sources when available. The point is so that information can be verified by an interested reader. This maintains the quality of the article overall. Regrettably with some aspects of Aus native fish, very little has been published. What I intend is for things I cannot find a suitable source for, I am going to "park" them on this talk page, until a suitable reference can be found and then as each one becomes "referencable" to coin an expression it can be moved back onto the article.

Also, please sign your entries here, since this is a serious discussion. Nick Thorne ^talk 07:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas me. I don't agree that such valuable information sits idle here on the talk page. I think these "rules" can be excessively applied at times. Maybe we will be forced to use a combination of technical Murray cod aquaculture references (assuming they can be found) and Merrick & Schmida (1984). Codman 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it comes down to this: do we want the article to acheive GA status or not. If we do, and I certainly do, then we have to follow the rules. getting into an argument with the reviewers will not help, it is only likely to p them off. The best solution is to provide references for the quarantined statements then put them back into the article. There are not many, and I am nearly finished running through the list so I do not expect there to be many more. At the end of the day I believe it is necessary to give up ownership of the article, it is after all a public domain document and not sweat it too much if theodd statement is left out - the sky will not fall, believe me. Nick Thorne ^talk 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at the reference requests you suggest above, but I am out of time just now. Nick Thorne ^talk 13:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quarantine

I will "park" statements here from the article that I assert are true, but for which I have been unable to find a suitable reference. These can be moved back into the article once such references are found. The section from which the sentence comes is in bild.Nick Thorne ^talk 11:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size: Large breeding fish are rare in most wild populations today.

Reproduction Such large females may also have valuable, successful genes to pass on.

Excessive water extraction, meanwhile, has caused numerous fish kills in recent years.

In Aquariums In heatwave conditions in the summer of 2004/2005 a number of aquarists in Australia suffered unfortunate losses as house and tank temperatures soared far above usual levels.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Thorne (talk • contribs) 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nick, I know you're trying to improve the article, but I vehemently disagree with this move. The above are vital statements that must remain. Kearney 2001 and the Proceeding of the 2004 Murray Workshop, both of which are already in the references, support the first statement, and I have provided a huge number of references to support the second statement. (The "large female" thing being a general and now recognised trend in most fish species.) Please, put them back. They had more than enough references supporting them. cheers, Codman 12:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a great deal of time trying to find suitable references, if you are saying that these statements are covered by existing references, then just add the statements back giving the correct reference. I am not just trying to improve the article, I am trying to get the article to GA status and to do that it is necessary that the article comply with Wikipedia policy regarding verifiability of all content. I am not saying that I think the above statements are not true, quite the contrary, but we must obey the rules and I intend to park more statements here if I cannot find suitable references for them. You can helkp by finding or listing suitable references for the requested statements from our reviewer. The quicker this is done the better and remember that I have not read all the references you have included, plus since I do not have access to much of the published literature because you have to subscribe to the publishing services, my abolity to source suitable refernces is limited.Nick Thorne ^talk 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. This article is extraordinarily well referenced, and I feel we are doing a bit of hoop-jumping here at times... Anyhoo, cheers... Codman 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say fixed, what do you mean? If you have moved statements back into the artlicle, please mark them as

Done above using the code: {{done}}, otherwise we will get hopeliessly lostNick Thorne ^talk 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have a good handle of all this blasted Wiki code. Codman 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues

Good work so far, but two issues with the article have become apparent to me. The 27th inline citation has no text in it, giving an error message. Second, per the Manual of Style, a summary section is not appropriate. It reads too much like a personal essay, and in parts is rather POV. VanTucky ^Talk 22:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree. It seems the moment we say things like "these factors have caused a serious decline in wild Murray cod numbers" or "these factors leave wild Murray cod populations at serious risk of further decline" we get accuse of POV. I don't believe it is so. The summary is valid, and that statements in it are valid. The factors we list have caused declines, and do leave wild populations at further risk. I believe it's a valid summary, not POV. I feel that we're almost at the point where we shouldn't saying anything except "oh this might have affected Murray cod". What's the point? If we have the research and references, and we know x factor HAS affected Murray cod, we should be able to say so, and saying so is not POV. Cheers, Codman 02:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking it way too personally dude. We can deal with the issues of POV by making sure we can back up what we say with published material. Nick Thorne ^talk 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've picked up the inline ref problem - a typo, as to be expected. The Summary sub section was to allow conclusion of the Conservation section outside the sub sections, I felt that just continuing would make the last part look like the previous sub section. Do you have a suggestion how to achieve this?Nick Thorne ^talk 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I thought of a way to do thisNick Thorne ^talk 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we there yet?

I believe I have addressed all the issues raised, and request that the article be reviewed. Of course, if there is anything else that needs to be done, just let me know. The quarantined statements will eventually be returned to the article, when I manage to secure suitable references for them, I just don't have time to traul through hundreds of possible references at this time. Nick Thorne ^talk 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! VanTucky ^Talk 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I must say it's looking damn good now (just had a skim). Your efforts have been excellent. Codman 06:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just passed it. Excellent work! Jude. 11:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

DoneI am currently retro fitting the citation templates to the inline references, one section at a time. I believe that this will make it easier to manage the refernces when editing the document and should produce a more consistent format in the reference list at the bottom of the article. If anyone wants to help out go right ahead, but I will gradually get all the way through the article on my own. Nick Thorne ^talk 04:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~HELP! Why has the date become wiki-linked in Reference No 4? It has not done it for the other references I have so far applied the citation templates to.~~ Nick Thorne ^talk 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I've worked it out.

If anyone sees any errors introduced as I go through the references converting them to the citation template, please leace me a message here, I will fix it ASAP Nick Thorne ^talk 07:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now

I'm going to leave this article alone now for a while, before I embark on any further major work on it. Fresh eyes I do not have for it just now! However, if someone finds a problem, then please let me know here and I will happily attend to it. Nick Thorne ^talk 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, but i would like to know why there isn't a section on fishing (not previous overfishing), both commercial and recreational. I know the species is stocked in dams for angling purposes, i'm not sure about commercial purposes though. If you move towards putting the article up for FAC (which you should... its good), you should probably mention this.Kare Kare 10:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I plan to include a section about fishing and also use in aquaculture, probably both as subsections under relationship with humans. Nick Thorne ^talk 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Status

I have changed the conservation status back from Critically endangered to Vulnerable which is the official status in Australia

See Australian Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) listing under Vulnerable Fish in the | EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna and the species listing at Murra cod listing

I believe the IUCN listing (which BTW is listed as out of date on the IUCN redlist database) is incorrect and was intended for trout cod Maccullochella macquariensis which was the scientific name for Murray cod before the two species were finally separated in the mid 1970s.

At no time has it been reasonable to describe Murray cod as critically endangered, the species is widespread and although not as common as it once was, still found in large numbers and in self supporting populations throughout much of its original range.Nick Thorne ^talk 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Century

WP:CENTURY indicates nn00s is best avoided. I am avoiding it. You are insisting on an exception for no provided reason. Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENTURY, doesn't state it is necessary or that it has to be used. Bidgee (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to justify the status quo until and unless the proponent for change has produced a cogent reason for that change. "I don't like it" is not a reason and that appears to be all your change is based upon. The current usage is perfectly acceptable, unambiguous and understandable and you have not shown how, if at all, your proposed change improves the encyclopedia. It may well be that there are valid reasons to make such a change and I might even support it if someone produces such reasons. What I won't support is editors making unilateral decisions for change which are clearly not supported by regulars to the page and which are re-applied several times by the same editor when several other editors have reverted the change. You have so far avoided the letter of the 3Rs rule, but clearly not the spirit. Time to talk lest you invoke the ire of those with power to do something about it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your comments as a threat and not an argument. "Avoid" means 'do not do'. That is very clear English in the MOS. You have offered no reason why you want to ignore the MOS. If you have a reason to ignore the MOS in a particular case, you should document it as a comment in the article text. My changing your article to make it match the MOS is a valid editing activity; your reverting my work to violate the MOS with no valid explanation is not. Please explain why you think it is important to leave your readers wondering whether you are writing about a decade or a century. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENTURY states it is best avoided, it doesn't mean every article should avoid the use of 1800s, 1900s, 2000s ect. Fact is the MOS also states "It should also be noted that the 18th century (1701–1800) and the 1700s (1700–1799) do not span the same period." Bidgee (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made no threats, I offered you advice. In case you were wondering, I certainly do not have the power to do anything should you break the 3Rs rule. Secondly , you still have not provided any reasons why your changes improve the article. Wikilawyering about what the MOS states does not impress me at all and is no substitute for actual logical argument. As the one proposing the change the burden lies upon you to justify it. I am open to such argument, but I have not seen any yet. I suggest you climb down off your high horse and explain in what way your proposed change will improve the article. That is all I am asking of you, is that so unreasonable? - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable writing gets reasonable responses and not otherwise. If the article reads '1800s' for example, that can mean either 1800 to 1809 or 1800 to 1899. This is not clear. We are supposed to write in a clear and unambiguous style so that the reader does not have to guess what we mean. The reader may guess wrong because our writing left room for interpretation. This is simply a matter of clarity and being of service to readers. This is, I suppose, the reason why the MOS says 'avoid'. Instead of 1800s one could write 'between 1800 and 1899' if you really wanted to, but most writing uses 19th century which puts things maybe 1 year wrong, but not 90 years wrong. You may not like the MOS, but to be a WP writer, we are supposed to follow it. Thanks Hmains (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw-man argument, no reader would interpret "1800s" as meaning 1800-1809 in this context. The only time that such a usage would be applicable would be in a discussion about differing decades within the century, which quite clearly is not the case in this instance because the use of "1800s" is correlated with "1900s" - obviously we are talking about centuries here. Any reasonable reader will understand what is being referred to. The Wiki guidelines do not require us to take into account unreasonable interpretations. If you really want to push this change any further I suggest you start an RFC, otherwise just let it drop. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Things that are so very clear to authors are not so equally clear to other readers, especially those who come to WP to learn and come with varying degrees of education and English knowledge. This is why the MOS (the WP consensus) says what it says. I also get more than a whiff of article ownership from the sentence above "What I won't support is editors making unilateral decisions for change which are clearly not supported by regulars to the page". As you know must in WP, 'regulars' have no special power or privilege so such a statement has no bearing here whatsoever. Hmains (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own this page - my comment is a general one and applies to any page. "Regulars" to a page are simply those who keep a particular article on their watch list and who have a particular interest in its subject. Instead of making uncivil allegations to those you think disagree with you, you could perhaps try to assume good faith. You still have not supported your proposed change with any actual reasons for it - the current usage on the page is clearly allowed for in the MOS, so you need to use more than a bit of MOS hand waving to support it. As I said ealier, I am not irrevokably wedded to the current wording, but I do not agree that I don't like it is a valid reason for change. Come to this discussion with some positive arguments and you might find that they get a better hearing. As it stands you started this whole thing off by trying to push your change through despite clear opposition from several other editors, ignoring the bold, revert, discuss cycle convention. As a result you now need to work a little harder to convince other editors that your change really is in the best interest of the article since that certainly did not seem to be the case when you continued to apply the same change four times, being reverted by three different editors (including myself) with no attempt to discuss the change until taken to task for it after the 4th attempt. Again, I urge you to start an RFC if you really want to make this change - let the community decide. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an "As Food" section.

Other fish have an As-Food, why not this one? It is excellent eating. That's not a POV - All the government department posters of fishes that rate those fish in terms of edibility have always given this fish the highest rating (usuall five stars ***** ). Old_Wombat (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National recovery plan released in 2010

The article currently says:

Important issues affecting restoration of cod populations, such as the need for spring floods and excessive angler take, although yet to be addressed, will be dealt with in the National Recovery Plan when it is completed.

The national recovery plan was released in October 2010.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/murray-cod.html

This part of the article needs to be updated, but I expect the entire section and other sections also need an update. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Murray cod/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Well done on this article. It covers a wide range of information, however one fault I could find was long strings of words that nobody would want to wade through, especially not school children (your referencing problem in Wikiproject Australia). Auroranorth 11:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC) I rated it B as it is literally one step from GAC. Inline citations. Once you get those in, review What is a good article? for yourselves point by point, take it straight to WP:GAC and I have no doubt it'd pass. Then aim for FAC. Good luck! DanielT5 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 00:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Murray cod. 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Murray cod. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010105433/http://www.nativefish.asn.au/cod.html to http://www.nativefish.asn.au/cod.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721002731/http://www.nativefish.asn.au/files/Recollections_compressed.pdf to http://www.nativefish.asn.au/files/Recollections_compressed.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mdbc.gov.au/about/basin_statistics
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010105433/http://www.nativefish.asn.au/cod.html to http://www.nativefish.asn.au/cod.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murray cod. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906154918/http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/101/WAM-Report-2004-05.pdf to http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/101/WAM-Report-2004-05.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] title of page or article Title of Site, journal or book Retrieved 5 February 2007

[1]