Talk:Steller's sea ape

Steller's sea ape 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 5, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steller's sea ape article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sea otter

Can't put this in the article as it is original research, but I am surprised no-one has suggested it might have been a sea otter. The sea otter's face looks much more like a dog than the fur seal does, it lives in the correct region, it is almost exactly the right size (whereas fur seals are a little too large, unless it was a juvenile), juggling with kelp is a very typical sea otter behaviour, its long whiskers are very prominent, and the described colouration is very typical.

Both the fur seal and the sea otter do not exactly match on the flippers, unless they were inexactly observed, but here we have a quandary: if Steller saw no forelimbs, how did he see it juggling? In every other respect the fur seal is a fair match but the sea otter is exact. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but he independently described both the Sea Otter and the Northern Fur Seal, as well a sea lion and a sea cow. The "explanations" section provides a good reason for a possible mis-identifiaction (and it is referenced too). If you can provide a similar reference from a reliable source which mentions your "theory", feel free to add it to the article. Astronaut (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They also killed hundreds of sea otters while surviving the winter on an island off Siberia, so they saw many many sea otters. What confuses me is Steller's description of 'juggling' when he also suggests the animal lacked front limbs of any kind. I've only read a book about the voyage, not his translated notes/publications. Large erect ears are unlike most marine mammals. He was accurate with his other descriptions, it sure makes me wonder.--Paddling bear (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beasts of the Sea

"Steller's 1742 governmental report made no mention of it, but he included a description of the creature in his De Bestiis Marinis (‘The Beasts of the Sea’)." -- DBM does not contain mention of the sea ape. That is only in his Journal of a Voyage .... Proyster (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source, DBM did mention it. Bkatcher (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AAH

What is the link with aquatic ape hypothesis (an alternative hypothesis of homonid evolution). Other than this being an ape and aquatic. That is not enough of a link that they are worthy of being linked like this. Nothing links this cryptid to homonid evolution.ZayZayEM (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe POV

This article gives undue weight to the cryptozoological viewpoint. WP:WEIGHT requires that we represent all significant viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"; the cryptozoological paragraph is supported only by fringe sources Newton and Eberhart. Even if we label the fringe view as such, it would need to be backed by RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Yes, but you forgot "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space". This is a very niche topic about a cryptic creature, therefore we also have to present what cryptozoologists say (of course, we're still abiding to "must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view") User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Dlthwave on this one. Since the pseudoscience/subculture and its proponents rate deep on the fringe-o-meter, we really need a reliable source discussing cryptozoologist interest in this topic and its culture context to include it here. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steller's sea ape/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 22:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick up this review. Hog Farm (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Observations - "foating near their ship" - Subject of the sentence is Steller (singular). There's several solutions to this, I'll let you choose.

"the ship" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts - Having 4-5 in reddish-yellow hair - You mean that the hair was 4-5 inches long, right? I read this with a slight possibility of ambiguity, but maybe that's just me.

Research history - "He also makes a small note in his most famous book De Bestiis Marinus, calling it an "imperfect account" for lack of a specimen:" - The past tense is probably more appropriate here.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this next point is just my reading, but it took me a little while to figure out that "Steller assigned this creature to "Simia marina"–which was illustrated in Swiss naturalist Conrad Gessner's book Historia animalium–based on its resemblance, strange behavior, rapid movements, and playfulness.[1] However, the man who first reported "S. marina", Italian biologist Gerolamo Cardano, said it was likely a snake, and Gessner said that it had a covering more like a turtle, and the creature was reportedly green and hairless overall.[5][6] At least 5 years had passed since Steller last saw or read a description of Gessner's sea ape to when he had described his account.[1]" indicated that others had reported the existence of a "sea ape" before Steller, and that Steller was basing his classification upon it. I would have written it to where I mentioned the "identification" of Simia marina as a species before stating that Steller classified his discovery as such, but that's really just an editorial preference. The paragraph works as is, so if you don't want to change it, don't change it.

Might initially read like a tangent if I just start talking about Gessner first User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also You seem to be quite knowledgeable about species-related articles, so I'll trust your judgment that these linked articles are related.

References are to reliable sources and are properly formatted.

Images are relevant and properly documented.

COPYVIO None detected. Oddly enough, I found a mirror site that included a sentence from this article under "Annular Tropical Cyclone."

Some articles of this type include a short section about fringe theories, but I do not believe that would be appropriate for this article. Thank you for avoiding the use of fringe sources in this one, I've had some experiences at AfD of users trying to demonstrate that listings in cryptid encyclopedias demonstrates verifiability/notability.

@Dunkleosteus77: Formatting's good, and half of these comments are really questions, not issues. Just a couple small grammar fixes, and this one's a GA. Great work. Hog Farm (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good now. Hog Farm (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without offence to creator, but @Dunkleosteus77:, this a shabby GA. ~ cygnis insignis 13:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC) @Dunkleosteus77:, screwed syntacs, reping?[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: you can submit it for GAR if you feel the article has unreconcilable issues User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: That sounds like a plan, but not what I had in mind; GAr is another mill and I'm qualified to get to the nub without that palaver. Would you mind pinging the vested interests to this article? ~ cygnis insignis 16:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: per above, without fear or favor, an excellent choice of article that caught my eye … here where are: I believe this needed closer copy-editing and more eyes before promotion. I'm sure you will be agreeable to an improvement to the article, by the simplest path. ~ cygnis insignis 17:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: - Asides from a copyedit, what exactly do you see that's wrong with this article? I will admit that my spelling/grammar isn't the greatest so I probably missed something. Also, some of your edits added some of the copy edit issues such as "auther". I'm also not sure what the point of some of the changes you made were, such as a reference to "the author" which doesn't fit well with the context and isn't a good title for Steller. Hog Farm (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edits that really 'fix' anything. They were just stylistic preferences; there doesn't seem to have been anything truly incorrect that was changed. For example, cygnis changed "around" Shumagin Islands to "near"; "He described the body as being long and fat, thinning towards the tail" to "and thinning"; "and noted" to "noting"; for some reason switched out {{cvt|5|ft|m}} to "around five feet, or one and a half meters long" actually written out; "German zoologist Georg Steller was onboard the" to "German zoologist Georg Steller, aboard the" (which actually makes it incorrect now because you forgot to put a comma to indicate where the interruptor ended); "auther" as Hog Farm pointed out; and you switched "Grouping=Primate" to "Grouping=Mammal" and I don't really know where I stand with that one User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: ta for the response. Apologies for ratty copyedit, it is hardly reasonable to make a fuss when I couldn't even find my glasses. And yes, the simple path is a copyedit, my spelling is okay but grammar is totally questionable; just tightening of what is there was my intention and expected that would have happened during the GA review process. Regards ~ cygnis insignis 13:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]