Jump to content

Talk:Rice's whale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
A Rice's whale found washed up at Everglades National Park
A Rice's whale found washed up at Everglades National Park
  • ... that the newly described Rice's whale (Balaenoptera ricei) is one of the most endangered Cetaceans, with fewer than 50 adult individuals believed to be remaining? Sources: "[Rice's whales] are one of the most endangered whales in the world."[1] "All of these estimates appear to support the conclusion that there are fewer than 50 mature individuals remaining in the population, even considering the following caveats."[2]
  • Comment: As discussed in article text, the Rice's whale was referred to as a "Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale" prior to 2021; all sources cited here refers the species to that name. An alternative image for this nomination would be the one on the article's taxobox.

Created by Macrophyseter (talk). Self-nominated at 08:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • This interesting article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and any of the hooks could be used. The image is in the public domain, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. No QPQ is needed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although any would work out, I highly prefer my first hook, because it brings the most urgency to its conservation threat. Macrophyseter | talk 16:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Gulf of Mexico Bryde's Whale". NOAA Fisheries.
  2. ^ Corkeron, P.; Reeves, R.; Rosel, P. (2017). "Balaenoptera edeni (Gulf of Mexico subpopulation)". The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2017: e.T117636167A117636174. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T117636167A117636174.en.
  3. ^ Rosel, P.E.; Wilcox, L.A.; Yamada, T.K.; Millin, K.D. (2021). "A new species of baleen whale (Balaenoptera) from the Gulf of Mexico, with a review of its geographic distribution". Marine Mammal Science. doi:10.1111/mms.12776.

Is it really Rice's whale?

[edit]

I've noticed a lot of the sources are from before 2021 and so the source itself will identify the species as Eden's or Bryde's whale. This is of course unavoidable, but when it does happen, a note of it should be made. I'm looking specifically at "Each individual makes around 22 calls per day, with each call producing on average 8.2 sounds per hour." where the source mentions B. edeni, but I'm sure there're others   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same problem with pretty much every single study of the population that didn't genetically test every whale. It's the most parsimonious conclusion that they are Rice's whales but not exactly 100% objective given that you can't necessarily disprove that the whales may happen to be an unlikely anomaly of another species without genetic testing. Because referring everything to "Bryde's-like whale" when applicable would likely cause more trouble with confusion than its worth over a technicality, I agree that it should be addressed with note. I've currently placed one at the beginning of the aforementioned paragraph, but I think it would be helpful if is placed in a more prominent place, although I'm not sure where. Macrophyseter | talk 00:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rice's whale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 14:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Article you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I'm new to reviewing GA's, but I'll try my best. AryKun (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC) The article seems more or less ready to go. I've done some small edits already, and I just have a few comments.[reply]

  • "underside of the tail is pale to pinkish" should probably specify what color is pale.
Source doesn't specify the color other than "light." Macrophyseter | talk 08:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of dublinks- "North Carolina" and "Georgia" being the ones I can see.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that the images showing the skeletal parts are particularly necessary. The lanternfish and orca pictures also seem superfluous, considering that neither of them actually feature the whale.AryKun (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The skeletal parts show various bones that are mentioned in the text that demonstrate morphological distinctiveness; in addition, most other well-attended cetacean articles have images of skeletal material in one way or another, and I don't see how keeping the image harms the quality of the article given its direct relevance to one of the topics. Also, images don't need to depict the subject of the article if its depicting something else that is directly relevant to that subject. For example, the Livyatan article contains three images that do not have the article subject anywhere in them, but they were still accepted because they still demonstrate the biology/ecology of the genus well. In the case of this article, the lanternfish demonstrates the sense of what the Rice's whale might be eating, and the orca image illustrates a better sense of the whale's environment (same with the oil spill image). Macrophyseter | talk 01:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With extremely low numbers, the Rice's whale also faces the threat of inbreeding depression,which consequentially severely weakens the remaining population's ability to recover and survive due to the reduction of genetic diversity and accumulation of harmful mutations. To assess how well a population can survive on its own in the wild, geneticists employ the 50/500 rule, where the threshold for a population to successfully combat inbreeding depression is 50 individuals and to reduce mutation-creating genetic drift is 500 individuals. Given that the Rice's whale's mature population is far below these thresholds, additional ecological traits such as a k-seletected reproduction strategy slows the chance of recovery even further and puts the species at a high chance of entering a phenomenon known as an extinction vortex. It has been projected that an assumed population of 35 Rice's whales would take 68 years to recover to 500 individuals. During this period, the species is more vulnerable to catastrophic events that can further damage the population's recovery chances. Such catastrophes have already happened, the most devastating being the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill." The paragraph should be reworded a bit, it's a bit awkward to read as it is. In particular, the first sentence and the third sentence need to be rewritten. AryKun (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with as little as 16 mature individuals" in the lead should probably be replaced with "with other estimates as low as 16 mature individuals"
The estimates are referring to different groups. The 33 estimate is for the population as a whole (mature + juvenile) and the 16 estimate is for matures only. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the species declined to its current state" needs tone replaced with "the species' population declined to its current state"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "While fin whales (of which the name "finback" applies to today)", the "of which" should be replaced with "to whom".
I don't think you use personal pronouns when referring to a species as a whole. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which its modern geographic isolation was uncovered during the 1990s." is a bit confusing and unclear.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "triangular-shaped" in Skull should be either triangle-shaped or triangular: personally, I lean towards triangular.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "the fringe of these plates throughout the jawline and all baleen in the anterior jaw positions are uniformly cream in color", I think that the "are" should be replaced with "is", as the fringe is presumably a singular noun here.
Pluralizing "fringe." Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second sentence in Postcranial, "slightly less" should be replaced with "slightly fewer".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "The vertebral formula is as such:", the as such should be removed.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Rice's whale is mainly restricted to the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, specifically to a small stretch along the continental slope between depths of 150–410 meters (490–1,350 ft) within and near the De Soto Canyon off the coast of western Florida, Alabama, and eastern Louisiana that scientists identify as the core habitat range." is confusingly worded and could be stated in a clearer manner.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit nitpicky, but "There is neither asymmetric pigmentation on the lower jaws nor blaze or chevron pattering on the body, which distinguishes the Rice's whale from fin whales and Omura's whales." sounds a bit odd and I would prefer it being reworded.
  • The Phylogeny section seems overly technical. Maybe it could be simplified for a broader audience?
Did some rearrangement to see if that helps. Macrophyseter | talk 20:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which are creases of integument" doesn't really help clear up what ventral pleats means: if anything, it's even more complicated and difficult to understand.
Reworded and added wikilink. Macrophyseter | talk 20:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discovered in Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana" should probably have a "the" before Chandeleur.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which washed up in Tampa Bay, Florida in 2009 and subsequently disposed of via burial" needs a "was" after and.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should wikilink "antorbital" and "stylohylal".
Linked latter. The former is an anatomical position term that doesn't really have an article. Macrophyseter | talk 20:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review!! Macrophyseter | talk 17:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Rice's whale"

[edit]

This article uses "the Rice's whale" rather than just "Rice's whale", which is grammatically awkward since "the" and "Rice's" are both determiners (even if "Rice's" is part of the name), and you normally don't put multiple determiners in front of a noun. I think it would be better to use just "Rice's whale" throughout. Nosferattus (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Range and location map

[edit]

The yellow dot specifying the location of Desoto Canyon has been placed on the Mississippi River well inland of its mouth. The Desoto Canyon is the deep submarine canyon just offshore of the panhandle of Florida. Please move the dot to the correct location. Deangulick (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the right location when I view it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree ... when I view the graphic on my laptop just now, the placement of the yellow dot is accurate. But it is off-location as described earlier when viewed on my iPhone (where I first noticed the problem). I suspect that the yellow dot and map are two separate graphics and not hard-linked together, and so they shifted relative to one another on the iPhone presentation.
Can this be corrected? The incorrect annotation of DeSoto Canyon can confuse a lot of folks who don't know the geography of the GOM sea floor at a time when protections for the Rice's whale by the US gov't. have just changed. Thanks. Deangulick (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rice%27s_whale&oldid=1210040319"