Talk:River dolphin/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 17:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to review this article. On a preliminary inspection it looks well-written, and I will read it in more detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 22:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is so weird, I just read this and was about to start a review myself. Should I leave my comments here too, or leave you both to it? What a funny cooincidence. delldot ∇. 22:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave your comments here. As far as I know there can be more than one reviewer. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 01:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool, I'll just drop what I have here and then let Cwmhiraeth make the calls. Some of these may not block GA promotion, I just thought I'd mention what I noticed. In fact I think it's very close to passing.

Explain "relictual distributions". If that is what the next sentence is, you could separate them with a colon instead of a period to make that clear.

citation needed templates need to be seen to.

I don't see anymore

Throughout, if it would be possible to do some copyediting to remove technical, jargony-sounding language, that would be good. e.g. morphological, impedance. Also, if you have a choice between a fancy word like extant and a simpler one, it's better to go for simpler. But overall good job defining unfamiliar terms inline.

Okay, but I'm keeping morphological

I can't figure out how to get {{convert}} to give singular figures, so it currently reads, the 2.5 meters (8.2 ft) and 100 kilograms (220 lb) Amazon river dolphin.

You add "|adj=on" to do that; done

It's not clear what the antecedent 'its' is referring to here, the dolphins or the habitat: The authors of the discovery paper regard its probable eventual IUCN status to be Vulnerable or worse.

I thought it was obvious when it says "Vulnerable" (moreso that its says [[Vulnerable species|Vulnerable]] but only an editor can see that); the term "Vulnerable" (especially when capitalized) refers to a species or genus or family and so forth. Also, the IUCN doesn't give conservation statuses to habitats (not things like "Vulnerable" at least)

The switching between singular and plural throughout the article is disconcerting. Better to stick with one.

I thought I used only plural. Where is it singular?

In the mythology section, why not put old world first? That way the image could go with the old world text without dipping below.

Done

Well that's all I got! I'll keep an eye on this in case you want more discussion about these but otherwise I'll just let you two take it from here. Thanks folks! delldot ∇. 05:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution, delldot. I took on a flurry of reviews in the hope that people would get on and review my articles before the end of October when the final round of the WikiCup comes to an end! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get through this in the evening.

G'day, do you guys mind if I look over the refs and fix any? I noticed a few books sources and such have access dates, and from what I have been told, these sources do not need one. By the way Dunkleosteus77, I will finally have enough time to overview the refs on Whale, I'm really sorry I have not been paying attention to it. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I haven't been paying much attention to them myself. You can add comments here and/or fix problems on the article, there's no problem with that. Thanks. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 14:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll check in a moment. Now that Termite has passed and Archimyrmex will be relatively quick, I should be able to go through this shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

With several people helping, we should make rapid progress.

Wikilink and/or explain less-well-known terms such as relictual, conspecific, echolocation, cornea,

I think I've explained those terms

"River dolphins are members of the infraorder Cetacea, who are descendants of land-dwelling mammals" - I think "who" only refers to people.

Done

"River dolphins have torpedo shaped bodies with a flexible neck," - Singular/plural confusion.

Done

The Anatomy section has too many very short paragraphs.

Done

"Blubber can help with buoyancy, protection from predators (they would have a hard time getting through a thick layer of fat), and energy for leaner times with the primary use for blubber is insulation from harsh climates." - This sentence is somewhat confused.

Done

"River dolphins have two flippers on the front, and a tail fin." - On the front of what?

Done

Tucuxi - Is this included in your definition of river dolphins or not. If it is, it needs to be included in the classification section.

It's not, it specifically states not now

"River dolphins have very small eyes for their size, and they do not retain a very good sense of sight." - Do they see better when they are young then?

Done

"The authors of the discovery paper regard its probable eventual IUCN status to be Vulnerable or worse." - This statement needs some clarification. What discovery paper? What's this about the IUCN?

Done; IUCN is wikilinked

"for the damage to their equipment and capture." - Perhaps by capture you mean you mean to the loss of their catch.

Done

"Around 100 went to US dolphinariums, and of that, only 20 survived, with the last in Pittsburgh in 2002." - Not a very grammatical sentence.

I think I resolved that but you might want to check

""enchant" or haunt humans into doing their will" - can you express this in a different way?

I think I resolved that but you might want to check

"Shamans and holy men are often needed to intervene and ameliorate the situation, but sometimes the spell is so great that it can not be completely cured." - This sentence also has problems.

Done

That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading

Your alterations are largely satisfactory and I have made a couple of tweaks to the article.

"Male river dolphins typically mate with multiple females every year, but females only mate every two to three years." - This statement seems contradictory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are polygynous, so a male can mate with multiple females even though females mates every two to three years, and not every single male can have the opportunity to mate. This is the trend seen in many animals (like elephants except they have a wider gap between mating). I'll rephrase that sentence in the article?

I remember writing that but I can't find it. What section is it in?

It's in the third paragraph of the lead, and It should also be placed in the main text of the article, with a citation, because the lead is meant merely to be a summary of the rest of the article. (To find text on a page press CTRL and "F" simultaneously. A little text box appears in which you put the text you want to find. It's a most useful facility.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Comments on sourcing

Looking at the references, they are much improved from what I have viewed on Whale, nice work. I know sourcing is usually discussed at FA level, but there are a few issues that should be dealt with at GA level. You will have to do them yourself.

Ref no. 1 needs a page number (or numbers).

Done

Ref no. 7 needs a page number.

Done

Ref no. 4 is confusing me. Why does it have a doi that redirects to a different journal?

I have no idea how that got there

Ref no. 16 – is this a chapter from a book? It probably does not need an accessdate, but I cannot be so sure so you will need to confirm this yourself.

Done

Ref no. 24 has an incomplete page number (570–..2????)

Done

Ref. no 4 and 6 seem to be duplicates and share the same link, but have different dates. Am I missing something?

As for the rest of the sources given, I'll just fix them up. There are not many errors though. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Burklemore!

No worries! I'll take a look at them now. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article has been expanded and improved by the nominator since mid-September 2015 and is stable.
The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

Final assessment - I believe this article meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]