Talk:Smalltooth sawfish

Copyright problem removed

This article was based on the corresponding article at fishbase.org or niwascience.co.naz, neither of which are compatibly licensed for Wikipedia. It has been revised on this date as part of a large-scale project to remove infringement from these sources. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion and the cleanup task force subpage.) Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Addition of Behavioral Information

I am a student studying biology at Washington University in St. Louis and am enrolled in a Behavioral Ecology class (check out the link to our class and project above). I recently added information about the use of the saw of the sawfish for feeding and defense purposes. I also included information about the reproductive behavior of the smalltooth sawfish. After reading almost every article about smalltooth sawfish on Google Scholar, I realized that not very much is known about sawfish behavior. Much of the research regards studies about the population of sawfish off the coast of Florida or the use of the saw. I plan to talk more about the Florida studies the next time I edit this page.

Please let me know if you find any other sources of information regarding smalltooth sawfish behavior. I was searching for information about competition, but was unsuccessful in my attempts. I would really appreciate any insight you might have! Claire.Edelman (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammar Edits to Make / Confusing Wording

First of all, I think that you should reduce the number of phrases you use to describe the 'saw'. I found it reasonably distracting given the number of different ways you talk about it (i.e. 'exaggerated appendage, unique anatomical structure', etc.). I think that you should use only one or two phrases to describe it, and do so more directly (for example, 'elongated rostrum').

The first sentence of "Uncovering the Mystery of the Saw: A Behavioral Study" is very long and wordy, and I'm pretty sure is a comma splice. Could you break this up into two different thoughts? Perhaps the first sentence could introduce the study and then the second sentence could be about the scientist's methods; I think this would clarify the thought process and better articulate the argument. In this paragraph, I would also switch from the past tense to the present tense. Also, could you either clarify what you mean by "prey" (in quotations) or just eliminate the quotation marks altogether? "Prey" in quotations is reasonably confusing in its present context.

In "A Defensive Weapon": I replaced a comma with a semicolon in the middle of a sentence, to help the idea flow better.

In "Reproductive Behavior": I added a comma in the first sentence to help with the flow. I also added 'of' to "litters have been reported up to 20 pups...". I added an "s" to "mating pair separate without...".

Other than the few clarity issues in your article, this is a very concise, precise, and well-written article. Nice job! Ldorn1227 (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Updates and Suggestions

In this article, there were quite a few run-on sentences that I corrected. For most of these, I split up the sentences and reworded. For example: “The sensory organs, also called ampullary pores, are packed most densely on the dorsal side of its beak. This allows the fish to create an image of the three-dimensional area above it even in waters of low-visibility”; “The sawfish has also been observed to attack larger prey by using their weapon to dislodge large pieces of meat from victims. They then use their serrated saw teeth to tear through flesh.”; “…demonstrated that sawfish use their extended rostrum to detect and manipulate prey. She observed that the animals’ reaction to food already at the bottom of the tank, food falling from the water's surface, and introduced electric dipoles”

Overall, I wound up having to make a bunch of writing edits to make the article read clearer. In the sentence, “scientists to wrongly suggest that a sawfish’s saw was only good for one or the other,” I changed it to say: “This has lead scientists to wrongly suggest that a sawfish’s saw was only good for either sensing prey or capturing prey,” which clarified what “one or the other” meant.

A few things needed to be made more succinct, such as: “The saw is used mostly for feeding purposes; however, observations of sawfish in captivity have given rise to evidence that the saws are also used for self-defense,” which I changed to: “Although the saw is mainly used for feeding purposes, observations of sawfish in captivity sow that they may also be used for self-defense”. There were some things that I bracketed to turn into hyperlinks, including: tropical, denticles, and electrosensory.

Some suggestions:

1. The author says: “their unique anatomical structure.” The author should clarify what they mean. Earlier on, the article talks about their “saw” and how it is used to view the surroundings, but they should also state this explicitly in the wording to clarify what is meant by the use of the word “unique.”
2. I don’t know how necessary it I to say that Barbara Wueringer was the scientist that demonstrated that sawfish use their rostrum to identify prey. If the author wants to keep it in that she discovered this, it may be necessary to link to her Wikipedia page if she has one.
3. The part where the author says: “With this evidence and more…” they should either explain what the “more” is or just take out that word altogether. In the edits, I took it out, but it could be put back in if you have things to back up this “more”
4. I think it was good that the article has a section on conservation, especially since it is considered to be critically endangered. I think this section could definitely be expanded upon.
5. The author could talk about the history of the fish/overexploitation/what led it to be so endangered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgolds1203 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Edits

On the "Function of the saw" -The first paragraph about the rostrum provided a great deal of background information and was interesting to read, however I think it could still be cut down, especially since it serves as an introductory paragraph to this section on the function of the saw. -This was written very well, and I had to make only minimal changes to condense certain areas and make it more concise. -It was very thorough, with great detail! -Perhaps cut down on the section about the study Barbara Wueringer performed--maybe too much information is included here for this section

On "Reproductive behavior" -Perhaps elaborate on "courtship biting" -This was a well-written section as well, but perhaps the first paragraph could have been organized better. For example, a new paragraph could be made for the claspers. -If the electrosensory system is going to be mentioned, include more about this system and how it works. If there is not enough information to support its significance in courtship, then eliminate this mentioning.

In general: Seeing how this article probably did not start with very much, you made a great contribution! Your additions are very thorough and well-written. Lucialemon (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)