Gharial 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: February 2, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
evolving in the estuaries and coastal waters of Africa, but crossing the Atlantic to reach South America as well. A note on Eocene geography at this point might show how little crossing was involved: more like opposite coasts of the Red Sea.-- Wetman 23:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
> Some parts of the article spell it Ghariyal, others Gharial.. Which is correct? Should it not be uniform?
> This might be because the correct Hindi Language pronounciation for the word is closer to Ghariyal than to Gharial. Maybe a foot-note be added to this effect if all the instances of the word be ammended to Gharial?
Also, is the giant gharial Rhamphosuchus crassidens or R. indicus?--
Mr Fink
04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"The snout becomes progressively thinner the older the gharial gets." I'm curious--does it get thinner in absolute terms or just in relation to the rest of the beast? Rivertorch 05:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there are any established feral or otherwise introduced populations of Gharial existing outside of the animal's natural distribution range (In the Americas? Australia? Africa? etc). Anyone know? I've heard that there are Nile Crocodiles in Florida, U.S.A. so I'm thinking that there may be Gharial populations out there, too. Or, are gharials too specific for their niche to survive outside of their natural range? Thanks.
Some of the information on this page is strikingly similar to this page: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csp_ggan.htm - Insouciance 18:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest adding the kind of pronunciation aid one finds in most dictionaries to the initial article opening right after the name. Anyone know how to properly pronounce the name of this creature?
24.8.106.182 ( talk) 12:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I seriously considered getting rid of the man-eaters section and putting "Danger to Humans" or something like that as a sub-heading in "Diet." Unfortunately, I don't know where to put the recent addition "The most dangerous (and in most cases, the only dangerous) aspect of the Gharial is the animal's long and extremely powerful tail, which is more than capable of knocking a full grown man to the ground and even breaking bones." if I do that. What I'm going to do is put a citation needed tag on that sentence, and if there isn't a citation added in the near future, I'll delete it and remove the man-eaters section. Enuja 21:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you'll look at the article, it states that the False Gharial IS realted to the Gharial, in fact, even closly related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.195.17 ( talk) 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The caption on one of the 1st images shows a gharial with its mouth open and states 'gharial lurking'. I doubt it is "lurking" (which would imply it is awaiting for a prey - and considering the diet consists mainly of aquatic/fish this seems quite unlikely) - rather it looks like it is resting and thermo-regulating. Ivan Scott Warren ( talk) 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this species considered to belong to a monotypic genus is it the only living member of this genus?
This article currently contains the following text "The bulbous growth on the tip of the male's snout is called a 'ghara' (after the Indian word meaning 'pot') . . ." The problem with this is there's no such language as "Indian" Does anyone know what language the word actually comes from? For the possible choices see Languages of India. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 03:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead says the Gharial is the only surviving member of the family Gavialidae. The taxonomy section, however, says that the False gharial is also in the family Gavialidae. These can't both be correct. Kaldari ( talk) 22:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a journal, it is called "Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society", it includes the incidences when Gastroliths, ornaments were found in there stomachs. Sometimes they had no food, but stones in the stomach. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the claim about the Esperanto meaning in popular culture, as the main source I could find was the (Es) Vikipedia article, which was uncited. If you know of a reliable source for the claim, feel free to put it back with a citation. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
At the section, there is a line which, directly quoting, says 'Males develop a hollow bulbous nasal protuberance or at sexual maturity.' Why is there an 'or'? Is this an error? If not, can someone explain? I don't understand. The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 14:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You should include Romulus Whitaker in the conservation section of the page. He was one of the people who started the effort to protect gharials. Also to include more up to date information from gharial conservation website. Feelthebern2016 ( talk) 16:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gharial. 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, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
On Wednesday, an attack by a crocodilian (I suspect a Mugger crocodile) was reported in Bihar's West Champaran district, in the Gandaki, but obviously, I do not want to violate any copyright. Anyways, I used these references [1] [2] to get close to the topic, in the article about Valmiki National Park. Leo1pard ( talk) 06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Leo1pard ( talk) 06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The fossil range for the gharial says it's from the late Eocene, 33 something million years ago, but the fossil range for Gavialis is in the early Miocene. Which is in error?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 01:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gharial. 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, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Just reading through this fascinating recommendation, noting a couple of ideas here as I go.
I prefer seeing other species given the binomial, perhaps in parentheses after the turtle or bird's common name, and appreciated seeing that the extinct species being included. Back later for another look. cygnis insignis 10:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Adding a few suggestions here. Structural initially, will look over contents later as I collate and read references. Shyamal ( talk) 08:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Lead - all citations need to go out of this and it needs to be a more inclusive summary of the remainder of the article.
Sections: It seems to me that taxonomy really ought to come up earlier as in most other taxon articles.
Palaeontological classification - this title would suggest that there are other kinds of classification which I think is a bit odd. The long list seems to be a big unsightly given that it has too much unused white space to its right. Much of this could probably be summarized into a cladogram that sits on the right side - if a time scale needs to be shown with extinction bars - the cladogram template may be inappropriate and a suitable SVG illustration could be created (I am happy to help here if we can find sources). I feel that not every species under the subfamilies need to be listed. The "Evolution" section could be included in a single larger "Taxonomy and systematics" or "Evolution and classification" section.
Local names may be better incorporated into a "In culture" section with more than just names, perhaps etymology, mythology, depictions in local art, and other associations could go there.
Characteristics - starting off with adult characteristics might be more natural. The life cycle description can come later.
Distribution and habitat - the bulleted river basins list may be better converted to a single paragraph - this would also be best to have alongside a good map indicating historical distribution and current distributions along with conservation sites.
Cheers for now. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 10:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
It may supposed to be like this but, the link for Tomistoma lusitanica, takes me too Tomistoma schlegelii, I just wanted to make sure it was supposed to be like that instead of trying too edit it, when I don't know the facts.
Mrcoffeecups ( talk) 04:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 ( talk · contribs) 21:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
removed this sentence -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 19:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, It is to my utter disappointment that this article states contradictory statments about gharial’s body mass (at 160 kg or 350 lb). In the wiki page of largest organisms (section of heaviest living reptiles), its average mass is mentioned as 250 kg (550 lb). There are several pages in the internet claming it to weigh up to 680 kg (1,500 lb). Even in the National Geographic page, it is stated that it can weigh up to 2,000 lbs (907 kg). Maybe it is a mere estimation, but I have seen National Geographic pages as references in some other crocodilian pages. Kindly contribute to improve as crocodilians are known to exceed other predators in terms of size & body mass. Thank you. Adpr99 ( talk) 18:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, lets assume the sources are accurate. But, there has to be some mention about possible maximum size and mass. Its not that convinient to read a gharial close to 6 m weighing only 160 kg. There has to be some mention of maximum possible mass along with average, thats all. Other than that, great work with collecting sources, hats off. Adpr99 ( talk) 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Read Common name and Wikipedia:COMMONNAME to understand that ONE website and ONE article using a different name than the commonly used one over decades does make this new name a common name. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 17:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
commonly used in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. The present list of 113 referenced sources is perhaps not complete, but represents the most important publications on the gharial in its range and covers about a century. Only 4 of those references use 'Indian gharial' in their titles. That is not a significant majority. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 07:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have provided a fourth and very reliable reference BhagyaMani. Refusal of it will be a clear indication in not caring about right information, and only caring about information you like for one reason or the other Bromar00 ( talk) 19:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contentsand
the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. So what makes a name notable + important enough for the lead that has been mentioned in only 4 of 113 references? – BhagyaMani ( talk) 09:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
review: do you mean peer review? If so, then yes, I also thought about this as step for FAC. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 14:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree to Cougroyalty's revert and too think that the common names should be used for clarity. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 17:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Gharial 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: February 2, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
evolving in the estuaries and coastal waters of Africa, but crossing the Atlantic to reach South America as well. A note on Eocene geography at this point might show how little crossing was involved: more like opposite coasts of the Red Sea.-- Wetman 23:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
> Some parts of the article spell it Ghariyal, others Gharial.. Which is correct? Should it not be uniform?
> This might be because the correct Hindi Language pronounciation for the word is closer to Ghariyal than to Gharial. Maybe a foot-note be added to this effect if all the instances of the word be ammended to Gharial?
Also, is the giant gharial Rhamphosuchus crassidens or R. indicus?--
Mr Fink
04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"The snout becomes progressively thinner the older the gharial gets." I'm curious--does it get thinner in absolute terms or just in relation to the rest of the beast? Rivertorch 05:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there are any established feral or otherwise introduced populations of Gharial existing outside of the animal's natural distribution range (In the Americas? Australia? Africa? etc). Anyone know? I've heard that there are Nile Crocodiles in Florida, U.S.A. so I'm thinking that there may be Gharial populations out there, too. Or, are gharials too specific for their niche to survive outside of their natural range? Thanks.
Some of the information on this page is strikingly similar to this page: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csp_ggan.htm - Insouciance 18:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest adding the kind of pronunciation aid one finds in most dictionaries to the initial article opening right after the name. Anyone know how to properly pronounce the name of this creature?
24.8.106.182 ( talk) 12:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I seriously considered getting rid of the man-eaters section and putting "Danger to Humans" or something like that as a sub-heading in "Diet." Unfortunately, I don't know where to put the recent addition "The most dangerous (and in most cases, the only dangerous) aspect of the Gharial is the animal's long and extremely powerful tail, which is more than capable of knocking a full grown man to the ground and even breaking bones." if I do that. What I'm going to do is put a citation needed tag on that sentence, and if there isn't a citation added in the near future, I'll delete it and remove the man-eaters section. Enuja 21:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you'll look at the article, it states that the False Gharial IS realted to the Gharial, in fact, even closly related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.195.17 ( talk) 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The caption on one of the 1st images shows a gharial with its mouth open and states 'gharial lurking'. I doubt it is "lurking" (which would imply it is awaiting for a prey - and considering the diet consists mainly of aquatic/fish this seems quite unlikely) - rather it looks like it is resting and thermo-regulating. Ivan Scott Warren ( talk) 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this species considered to belong to a monotypic genus is it the only living member of this genus?
This article currently contains the following text "The bulbous growth on the tip of the male's snout is called a 'ghara' (after the Indian word meaning 'pot') . . ." The problem with this is there's no such language as "Indian" Does anyone know what language the word actually comes from? For the possible choices see Languages of India. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 03:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead says the Gharial is the only surviving member of the family Gavialidae. The taxonomy section, however, says that the False gharial is also in the family Gavialidae. These can't both be correct. Kaldari ( talk) 22:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a journal, it is called "Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society", it includes the incidences when Gastroliths, ornaments were found in there stomachs. Sometimes they had no food, but stones in the stomach. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the claim about the Esperanto meaning in popular culture, as the main source I could find was the (Es) Vikipedia article, which was uncited. If you know of a reliable source for the claim, feel free to put it back with a citation. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
At the section, there is a line which, directly quoting, says 'Males develop a hollow bulbous nasal protuberance or at sexual maturity.' Why is there an 'or'? Is this an error? If not, can someone explain? I don't understand. The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 14:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You should include Romulus Whitaker in the conservation section of the page. He was one of the people who started the effort to protect gharials. Also to include more up to date information from gharial conservation website. Feelthebern2016 ( talk) 16:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gharial. 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, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
On Wednesday, an attack by a crocodilian (I suspect a Mugger crocodile) was reported in Bihar's West Champaran district, in the Gandaki, but obviously, I do not want to violate any copyright. Anyways, I used these references [1] [2] to get close to the topic, in the article about Valmiki National Park. Leo1pard ( talk) 06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Leo1pard ( talk) 06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The fossil range for the gharial says it's from the late Eocene, 33 something million years ago, but the fossil range for Gavialis is in the early Miocene. Which is in error?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 01:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gharial. 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, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Just reading through this fascinating recommendation, noting a couple of ideas here as I go.
I prefer seeing other species given the binomial, perhaps in parentheses after the turtle or bird's common name, and appreciated seeing that the extinct species being included. Back later for another look. cygnis insignis 10:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Adding a few suggestions here. Structural initially, will look over contents later as I collate and read references. Shyamal ( talk) 08:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Lead - all citations need to go out of this and it needs to be a more inclusive summary of the remainder of the article.
Sections: It seems to me that taxonomy really ought to come up earlier as in most other taxon articles.
Palaeontological classification - this title would suggest that there are other kinds of classification which I think is a bit odd. The long list seems to be a big unsightly given that it has too much unused white space to its right. Much of this could probably be summarized into a cladogram that sits on the right side - if a time scale needs to be shown with extinction bars - the cladogram template may be inappropriate and a suitable SVG illustration could be created (I am happy to help here if we can find sources). I feel that not every species under the subfamilies need to be listed. The "Evolution" section could be included in a single larger "Taxonomy and systematics" or "Evolution and classification" section.
Local names may be better incorporated into a "In culture" section with more than just names, perhaps etymology, mythology, depictions in local art, and other associations could go there.
Characteristics - starting off with adult characteristics might be more natural. The life cycle description can come later.
Distribution and habitat - the bulleted river basins list may be better converted to a single paragraph - this would also be best to have alongside a good map indicating historical distribution and current distributions along with conservation sites.
Cheers for now. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 10:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
It may supposed to be like this but, the link for Tomistoma lusitanica, takes me too Tomistoma schlegelii, I just wanted to make sure it was supposed to be like that instead of trying too edit it, when I don't know the facts.
Mrcoffeecups ( talk) 04:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 ( talk · contribs) 21:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
removed this sentence -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 19:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, It is to my utter disappointment that this article states contradictory statments about gharial’s body mass (at 160 kg or 350 lb). In the wiki page of largest organisms (section of heaviest living reptiles), its average mass is mentioned as 250 kg (550 lb). There are several pages in the internet claming it to weigh up to 680 kg (1,500 lb). Even in the National Geographic page, it is stated that it can weigh up to 2,000 lbs (907 kg). Maybe it is a mere estimation, but I have seen National Geographic pages as references in some other crocodilian pages. Kindly contribute to improve as crocodilians are known to exceed other predators in terms of size & body mass. Thank you. Adpr99 ( talk) 18:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, lets assume the sources are accurate. But, there has to be some mention about possible maximum size and mass. Its not that convinient to read a gharial close to 6 m weighing only 160 kg. There has to be some mention of maximum possible mass along with average, thats all. Other than that, great work with collecting sources, hats off. Adpr99 ( talk) 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Read Common name and Wikipedia:COMMONNAME to understand that ONE website and ONE article using a different name than the commonly used one over decades does make this new name a common name. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 17:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
commonly used in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. The present list of 113 referenced sources is perhaps not complete, but represents the most important publications on the gharial in its range and covers about a century. Only 4 of those references use 'Indian gharial' in their titles. That is not a significant majority. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 07:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have provided a fourth and very reliable reference BhagyaMani. Refusal of it will be a clear indication in not caring about right information, and only caring about information you like for one reason or the other Bromar00 ( talk) 19:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contentsand
the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. So what makes a name notable + important enough for the lead that has been mentioned in only 4 of 113 references? – BhagyaMani ( talk) 09:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
review: do you mean peer review? If so, then yes, I also thought about this as step for FAC. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 14:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree to Cougroyalty's revert and too think that the common names should be used for clarity. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 17:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)