Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Narwhal/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2024 [1].

Narwhal

edit
Nominator(s): Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the narwhal (Monodon monoceros), the closest living relatives of beluga whales. I made some improvements to the article and addressed concerns from the first FAC and second peer review. As is well known, the left jaw of narwhals contains a very long canine tooth. This gives narwhals their distinctive appearance. Because they spend most of the year on the Arctic ice, narwhals are challenging to photograph. I'm not sure why I chose narwhals over all other cetaceans, but something seemed to be driving me, perhaps because they're so unique among cetaceans and I think they'll make a fantastic addition to the mammal list. Regards and thanks for your time. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

edit

I can only repeat what I said in the last FAC and at the Peer Review – I do not think that that the "European" (now "Alicorn") section meets the FA criteria. It partly relies on a journalist's article (Washington Post) when high-quality scholarly sources are available, to cite information that is contradicted by those scholarly articles (which are cited in the same section). "Alicorn" as section title is too specific, since half of the section is about Vikings. Overall, the section is not comprehensive per FA criteria; the cited sources provide much more, they just need to be incorporated properly. The second paragraph picks some aspects but fails to deliver the big picture in a systematic way. I already said most of those things at the Peer Review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I don't understand what you're saying. All right, let me describe the section so it can be easy to make it FA quality. In the Middle Ages, Europeans thought narwhal tusks were unicorn horns. Thus, the trade is thought to have started about 1,000 AD, when Norsemen and Vikings exchanged them with Europeans. Due its supposed magical powers, the horns were employed for medical purposes as well as gifts to wealthy individuals. However, in the late 1600s, science refuted the unicorn horn notion. Therefore, the Vikings and Norsemen deceived Europeans into believing that narwhal tusks were unicorn horns for a very long time. And I used the Washington Post for the quote. That's all the valuable information the sources had to offer. I hope we are clear. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 22:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the scholarly sources you cite in that section in detail? For example, what do they say about the origin of the horns (where did the Vikings get them from), and where is the discrepancy with your article? "That's all the valuable information the sources had to offer" – sorry, but no – and again, did you read those sources? Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statements I added are just speculations. One citation stated, "Surprisingly, the question of the origin of the narwhal tusk that circulated in Europe has never been the object of a thorough investigation." Wolverine XI (talk to me) 06:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the extensive discussion on the question that this very source provides? I can understand that you might not be interested in the culture section and don't want to spend time on those sources, but it doesn't help, without reading them you cannot fix that section. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then tomorrow. I swear I'm never doing this FAC thing again once I get narwhal featured. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Added some more. The source was mainly talking about the theory around Norsemen whale-hunters. Going to sleep now. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 00:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

edit

I don't intend to do a thorough review, but I'm going to oppose this on (chiefly) prose quality at the moment. A non-exhaustive sample of issues I noted while reading through the article follows:

  • "The narwhal typically visits the Baffin Bay, between June and September." — the Baffin Bay? That sounds off to me. Also, why the comma?
    • Fixed
  • "The narwhal has been harvested for hundreds of years" – "harvested" seems like an odd word choice.
    • Fixed
  • "The narwhal has been depicted in human culture since ancient times." – has it? I don't find this in the body.
    • Removed
  • "he accurately designated it as "Monocerote"" – accurately? The meaning of this is not clear to me.
    • Fixed
  • "derived from Greek μόνον-δόντι μόνον-κέρατο" – should be transliterated. See MOS:NOTLATIN.
    • Fixed
  • "a body length of 3.5 to 5.5 m (11 to 18 ft), excluding the tusk. Males average 4.1 m (13.5 ft) in length; females average 3.5 m (11.5 ft)" – it seems peculiar that the lower bound for the species should equal the female average. Is this correct?
    • Fixed
  • "The tail flukes of female narwhals have a sweep-back in the front edges and those of males lack such a characteristic; their tail flukes are curved inwards." – does "their" refer to males or all narwhals?
    • Fixed
  • "Its skeletal muscle is designed to withstand" – certainly not. Adapted, perhaps.
    • Fixed
  • "a single long tusk, which is in fact a canine tooth" – "in fact"?
    • Fixed
  • "forms a left-handed helical spiral" – what is meant by "helical spiral" here—a conical spiral? I tried looking at the cited source to see if that clarifies anything, but I didn't find either "helix"/"helical" or "spiral" there (and only two mentions of "tusk", neither of which say anything about the shape).
    • Removed
      • Okay, but now we have no description of the tusk's shape. The tusks of other species come in various different shapes, so this seems like a rather egregious oversight, especially considering the tusk is the narwhal's "most conspicuous characteristic", as the article says. An image of a tusk is not sufficient; readers who cannot view images, such as those using screen readers, should also get information about the tusk's shape. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The purpose of the narwhal tusk is debated." – "purpose" seems a dubious choice of word. I would use "function".
    • Fixed
  • "The narwhal's mouth is toothless; it instead has several small vestigial teeth" – not really toothless, then?
    • Fixed
  • "Dive times can also vary in time and depth" – times can vary in time?
    • Fixed
  • "in spite of the fact that water depths in these areas are typically deeper" – "in spite of the fact" is typically a needlessly intracte phrasing, and depths being deeper is somewhat repetitive.
    • Fixed
  • "which then causes narwhals to subsequently alter their foraging strategies" – "then [...] subsequently" is redundant.
    • Fixed
  • "Large quantities of Boreo-Atlantic armhook squid (Gonatus fabricii) were discovered, but this feeding likely occurred outside the summer." – the significance of that last part is not immediately clear to me.
    • Removed
  • "averaging 1.5 m (4.9 ft) in length and white or light grey in colour" – I'm guessing "averaging" only refers to the length and not the colour, in which case it would be better to swap this around.
    • Fixed
  • "Their reproductive lives on the other hand, remained stagnant." – the meaning of this is not clear to me. This comes in the context of menopause, so I'm guessing it has something to do with that (reproduction of course ceases after menopause)?
    • Fixed
  • "while those used for echolocation typically falls between 19 and 48 hertz" – subject–verb disagreement.
    • Fixed
  • "Lifespan and mortality" – an odd word choice, methinks; obviously narwhals are not immortal.
    • Renamed
  • "Breathing holes in the ice may be up to 1,450 m (4,760 ft) apart, which limits the use of foraging grounds" – "limits the use of foraging grounds"?
    • Yes, the sea ice limits the movement of narwhals, as they need these breathing holes to stay alive. It's like a water source in a desert, you have to be close to it to have a good chance at survival.
  • "Several cases of sea entrapment were recorded in 2008–2010, during the Arctic winter, including in some places where such events have never been recorded." – had never been recorded before, presumably.
    • Fixed
  • "off the waters of Svalbard" – off the waters? Not "in the waters off [the coast of] Svalbard"?
    • Fixed
  • "Inuit are able to hunt this whale species legally." – "this whale species" is something of an odd choice of phrasing, and "legally" would seem to imply some sort of significance that is not elaborated upon further.
    • Fixed
  • "They are extremely difficult to encroach, and make tricky catches for hunters." – "tricky" is a bit informal.
    • Fixed
  • "Almost all parts of the narwhal; the meat, skin, blubber and organs are consumed." – I would say that the semicolon should be a regular colon, but that wouldn't work with how the sentence ends. Surrounding the list with dashes would probably be the best option.
    • Fixed
  • I generally don't mind duplicate links much, but there is at least no reason to link harpoon in consecutive paragraphs. There are some other duplicate links that are borderline.
    • Fixed
  • "approximately 1,000 AD." – years are not written with a thousands separator (see MOS:BADDATEFORMAT), and "AD" is unnecessary when there are no BC(E) dates.
    • Fixed
  • "Hadley Meares, a historian, quoted "The trade strengthened during the Middle Ages, when the unicorn became a symbol of Christ, and therefore an almost holy animal"." – rather unusual way of using the verb "quote".
    • Fixed
  • "The price tag of tusks were said to be a couple of hundred times greater than its value in gold per kg." – does "its value in gold per kg" mean "its weight in gold"? If so, just say that.
    • Fixed
  • "After being proven that narwhal tusks were antithetical to actual antidotes" – anacoluthon.
    • Fixed

Regrettably, TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Fixed all, please have another look. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 00:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like UndercoverClassicist below, I provided what was from the outset an explicitly non-exhaustive sample of issues, do not wish to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP, and stand by my opposition as I think the article still has a ways to go. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

With some trepidation, I am also an oppose for now on prose quality and general polish. This list is not exhaustive but is, hopefully, representative:

  • The narwhal is white in color: this isn't really true, since most of the white is covered by markings: you may as well say that labradors are pale pink.
    • Fixed
  • and is only vulnerable to predatory attacks from polar bears and orcas: and humans!
    • Added
  • The narwhal typically visits Baffin Bay between June and September. After this period, it moves... this sounds as if there's only one of these things. At best, the use of the singular here is archaic.
    • Fixed
  • It is mostly found... At the start of a new paragraph, the antecedent should be repeated. There are several examples of this problem throughout.
    • Fixed
  • is derived from Greek monódonto monókero,: per least surprise, "Greek" should be "Ancient Greek" (we expect that link to go to the modern Greek language): secondly, transliterated Greek should be given in a transliteration template, thirdly, this isn't (correct) Ancient Greek, or indeed modern Greek. It also isn't given in the cited source.
    • Fixed
  • The tusk cannot serve a critical function for the animal's survival, as females—which generally do not have tusks—typically live longer than males. Therefore, it is generally accepted that the primary function of the narwhal tusk is associated with reproduction: therefore is inappropriate here (the second postulate doesn't follow from the first). Secondly, the narwhal's tusk might have a role in sexual selection or similar, but giving it a role in reproduction would be extremely painful.
    • Fixed
  • The narwhal has several small vestigial teeth that mainly reside in open tooth sockets which are situated in the upper jaw.: what does mainly mean or modify here?
    • Removed
  • Narwhals typically travel further north, to the Baffin Bay between June and September. : the missing comma after Baffin Bay aside, this whole section is very confusing: we've suggested that various populations of narwhals "reside" in different places, but now have them moving en masse in a cyclical pattern between several different places.
  • calf numbers varied from 0.05% to 5% of the total numbering from 10,000 to 35,000 narwhals, indicating that higher calf counts may reflect calving and nursery habitats in favourable inlets.: this does not indicate that at all: the latter is a hypothesis developed to explain the former.
    • Fixed
  • In a 2024 study, scientists concluded that 5 species of Odontoceti evolved menopause to acquire higher overall longevity. Their reproductive lives on the other hand, did not increase or decrease.: this needs a bit of explaining: were pre-menopause whales simply stopping having calves after a certain age, despite retaining the capacity to have them?
    • By "reproductive lives" we mean the period when narwhals are able to conceive.
  • The tusks were then displayed in cabinets of curiosities: what does then mean here, and why is tusks plural -- which tusks does this cover, exactly?
    • Fixed
  • in addition to the purification of polluted water in nature,: this clause makes very little sense to me.
    • Rephrased
  • narwhal tusks were antithetical to actual antidotes: likewise, what does this mean -- it should mean that narwhal tusks somehow stop actual antidotes from working.
    • Fixed
  • a growing fetish for the supposed powers of unicorn horns: this is not the right WP:TONE for an encyclopaedia (see especially the term "fetish").
    • Fixed
  • Hadley Meares, a historian, quotes: quotes whom?
    • Fixed

I can see that work has gone into the article since its last FAC, but I'm afraid it isn't there yet. It really needs a good review and, I'd suggest, the assistance of an experienced mentor in the preparation stage. I am, of course, open to reviewing this vote, but it will require the article as a whole to be fixed, not only the examples I have picked out here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how fixing the entire article will make you change your mind, if I'm being completely honest. Rather than on the first day, it would have been better if you had objected on the seventh or whatever. And two opposes in a single day—well, I'll see what I can accomplish. Let me just play COD now. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Took your advice and "polished" the article prose. How's it looking so far? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 11:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a quarrel with most of what's been done above: as I said before, though, the list I gave was a representative sample rather than exhaustive. In the interests of avoiding WP:FIXLOOP, I'll refrain from throwing you another set: I can only repeat my suggestion that the whole article could really benefit from a through look-through, and that it would probably help if that were done with a second pair of non-expert eyes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser

edit

I enjoyed the read and have no major concerns.

  • "..which are typically slow-twitched, allowing for slow yet manoeuvrable motion." The difference between fast- and slow-twitch muscle fibres is explosiveness vs. endurance. While slow is true, stamina should also be stressed.
  • "Females, who usually do not have tusks, usually live longer than males.." Remove to avoid repetition, or replace.
  • "One or two vertebrae per animal are used for tools and art." Why just one or two? Is their anatomy peculiar or is there a custom of leaving the rest?
  • "..entrapment affected around 600 narwhals.." Sounds like a statement of fact. Perhaps it should be rephrased as the number of whales discovered?
  • "It is currently unclear how far sea ice changes pose a danger to narwhals." I prefer "to what extent".
  • ".. in one case killing up to dozens of narwhals in a single attack." I'd prefer phrasing this as a known limit of a range rather than as an example.

Since the FA-process wisely puts the emphasis on tangible criticism rather than tallying supports I know it's not worth much, but you have my support. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to pick a nit, I think you want "twitch", not "twitched". I don't know what the official grammar rule is, but I've always heard it as "twitch". RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Three reviewers feel that the prose is not up to FAC standard. (IMO they are correct, it - still - isn't.) There seems little chance of a consensus to promote being reached without extensive changes, and FAC is not the place for that. I am therefore archiving this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. I would suggest a visit to GoCER, and perhaps at the article's next visit to PR waiting until reviewers there feel it is ready for FAC before nominating it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Narwhal/archive2&oldid=1216601891"