Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Narwhal/archive4

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) 13 July 2024 [1].

Narwhal

Nominator(s): Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the unicorn of the sea, a one of a kind marine mammal. It has a long, protruding left-sided canine tooth or tusk that can grow to a whopping 3 meters or 9.8 feet. I have addressed every concern brought up in its last nomination, and I believe it is ready. In order to spare the previous reviewers some inconvenience, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from pinging them. I don't have much to say, so I hope you enjoy the read. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Scientists have long speculated that Vikings collected tusks washed ashore on beaches of Greenland and surrounding areas – I remember that I commented on this very sentence in multiple of the previous FA nominations and peer reviews of this article. Which source is supporting this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"When ivory came from the seas. On some traits of the trade of raw and carved sea-mammal ivories in the Middle Ages" -- the first one. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you mix something up here? The source seems to be the first to propose that Vikings got them from the shores of Greenland, so "scientists have long speculated" seems wrong. According to that source, the older sources suggested that narwhal tusks were washed ashore in Europe (without necessarily involving the Vikings, I think), which is a quite different story. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it uses a 1978 source so it cannot be considered the first. Also changed to European beaches. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand; Europe and Greenland beaches are two separate hypotheses. Don't mix them. And does the source say that Vikings collected them on European beaches? I don't think so. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not fix it, you just reverted back to the old version. Again: The sentence is, in this form, not supported by the source, and you are mixing two separate hypotheses. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I understood it. The first (outdated) hypothesis is that tusks were washed ashore in Europe. No vikings. No Norsemen. (What's the difference between vikings and norsemen btw?, why do you give both names?) Anyways, I think you should read the source again carefully. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use the first hypothesis since they are not specific about it. The difference between Vikings and Norsemen is that Vikings are a more specific group of Norsemen (i.e. they are a more aggressive, attacking group). All Vikings are Norsemen, but the opposite is not true. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A minor issue is that you write "was later disproven", but I don't think you can actually "disprove" such a hypothesis; better write "is now considered to be unlikely" or similar (the source itself does not use a stronger wording too). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Can you continue? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

The article was withdrawn from FAC on 17 June; the sum total of the changes since is here. It must admit that I don't see all that much, outside the final few paragraphs, and there I'm not sure that the changes represent improvements. Other reviewers may form their own opinions, of course. I think it is also worth restating that the major issue in the last FAC was verifiability; a few facts and sources have been removed or changed in this series of edits, but the majority seems to remain as it was last time around. Wolverine XI, less than two weeks ago you were advised to take a step away from the article, work on some other topics, and then come at it again when you were ready to give it an overhaul with fresh eyes: do you think you've done that? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did get fin whale to GA, so... Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Are you going to review this? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it’s particularly hidden in my comments that I don’t think the article is ready yet, though I think it would only be fair to let others have their say before formally chiming in as much. There are at least two people in the queue ahead of me: I might look at a full review once they’ve been through, if it looks as if that would be helpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: You viewed the article at the wrong time as I was copyediting the lead (and some sections) to see what works. Sorry to bug you, but can you be specific about "I doubt it’s particularly hidden in my comments that I don’t think the article is ready yet". That comment alone doesn't say much, so more details are appreciated. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a full review, but you'll notice above that I said verifiability was a concern at the last PR, and that I could not see evidence of substantial movement in this regard. I have just made three quick spot-checks on three sources. These are made complicated by the fact that none of the references provides page numbers: while these are not strictly required for FA, they do make everyone's life easier, and are overwhelmingly the norm.

Note 6 (One of the earliest illustrations of the species is a 1555 drawing by Olaus Magnus depicting a fish-like creature with a horn on its forehead; Magnus later called it "Monocerote"): the article mentions Magnus in the context of drawing unicorns (the horsey type), but I cannot find anything about this specific 1555 drawing, the name "Monocerote" (except for horsey unicorns), or any mention of narwhals at all in the article. Being even more pedantic, monocerote is in the ablative case: we would give the noun as monoceros.

Notes 11 and 12 (The Monodontidae are distinguished by their pronounced melons (acoustic sensory organs), short snouts and the absence of a true dorsal fin.: note 11 mentions a beak-like snout, but not that it is short, and does not mention anything about dorsal fins. It does, however, mention that Monodontidae are unique among mammals in having only a single nostril, which seems a strange omission from our own article, given how unusual it is. I can't find anything about any of this material in note 12: I assume that's only supporting the previous bit about narwhals and belugas being the only surviving members of the family?

Note 28: We have the suggestion that the dorsal ridge makes swimming under ice easier; the article does not say this, but rather that it reduces the chance of injuring the dorsal fin/ridge while swimming close to ice. I cannot find anything about to reduce surface area and heat loss in the article.

Some of this might simply be down to the fact that, without page numbers, it's much harder to find the part of the sources that you're drawing attention to, but three failures to verify from three checks doesn't reassure me much when verifiability was such an important factor behind the decision not to promote last time. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re "monoceros": The original plate, complete with name (in the ablative :), is in Magnus' "Historiae de gentibus septentrionalibus" - here: [2] (1557 edition). Might want to add this ref to the statement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this contradicts the "later called it", because the name is used right there in the original. I suppose keeping the Bamforth ref around is useful to source the statement about it being one of the first depictions, but otherwise this statement should rather follow the content of Magnus' work. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to cite 28. Not having a dorsal fin that could be injured by ice does make swimming under ice easier. It's appropriate paraphrasing stating the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go to work in a few minutes, but I'll be back to address these comments in 8 or 9 hours. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it is a paraphrase, so much as a slightly different concept. Medieval knights wore heavy armour: that didn't make charging at the enemy any easier (in fact, it made it rather more difficult), but it did make it a lot safer. Likewise, I don't think we'd say that builders on tall structures wear safety ropes to make their jobs easier. Admittedly, it's easily fixed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Wrong page? I don't see how knights are relevant to this nomination, or am I missing something? If you'd like to commence with a full review, you may. My answers on the spot-checks can be seen below 👇. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm back. I'll point to where the sources support the statements in the next hour or so. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 6: I tried to look for the original paper but couldn't find it, so I went with this one. In the source I originally provided, it said in which they are found they have surveyed, yet to describe the various monocerotes.

Usage here, referring to the single species, must however be "Monoceros" - I have corrected that. The usage in the plate caption is the ablative with a preposition, as UndercoverClassicist noted, and "monocerotes" is the plural. You can see the standard use of singular "monoceros" in the Latin text following the plate (same and following page). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 11 and 12: Cite 11 actually talks about the dorsal fin on p. 200. I'm not sure where it says "beak-like" snout and "single nostril". I now remember what happened with cite 12; I mixed up my references and instead of citing Walker's marine mammals I cited Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, hence the reason page numbers were not provided.
Cite 28: Facilitated movement through ice is already supported. For surface area and heat loss If the narwhal swam flat against the bottom with its dorsal side up, it would have the advantage of having its mouth closer to benthic prey than if it were upside-down.

Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t seem to be remotely about heat loss - it’s saying that swimming along the bottom lets it get its mouth closer to bottom-dwelling creatures that it wants to eat. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 23:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

The nominator has asked me to comment, and I hope to do so. I am having surgery on my right hand tomorrow, leaving me strapped up, and am not sure how quickly I shall be able to type properly after that, but will do what I can on or after Friday. Tim riley talk 13:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and best of luck with your hand surgery. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 13:18, 3 July 2024

too strapped up to type much now, but hope to have my right hand back on 10th of this month and to comment then. Tim riley talk 13:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; please do come back as soon as you can. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: well? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not much from me. This is a crackingly good article. Very minor points:

Duplicate links – no longer classed as a mortal sin in Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that we need the duplicate links to dorsal fin, pack ice, blubber (twice), melon, Northern Hudson, Eclipse Sound, Eastern Baffin Bay, Svalbard, whale meat, and Muktuk,
- Done Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The functions of the narwhal tusk have been debated, and include feeding …" – "include" seems a bit unequivocal for something that is debated. Perhaps "may include"?
- Done Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"During the summer, they eat mostly Arctic cod and Greenland halibut, with other fish such as polar cod" – our WP article on Arctogadus says that Arctic and polar cod are one and the same, and if that's correct then the latter are not "other fish"
- Not really, by Arctic cod we mean Boreogadus saida. Please see that article for more details. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the price tag of tusks were said" – singular noun "price tag" with plural verb "were"
- Fixed Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Printed for H.M. Stationery off., by Eyre and Spottiswoode" – we customarily name the publisher but not the printer. The publisher was Her Majesty's Stationery Office (for whom I worked for twelve years, though not in 1891).
- Fixed Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can come up with by way of carps and cavils. I am impressed by the article and look forward to adding my support. Tim riley talk 15:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim riley; I'm done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 12:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. The article seems to my layman's eye to be comprehensive and balanced; it is amply and widely sourced, well illustrated and surprisingly readable for such a specialist topic – I thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to seeing it on our front page. Tim riley talk 14:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commments from ChrisTheDude

placeholder for when I have sufficient time to look at this properly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: nudge. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The narwhal is distinguished by its stocky body, short, blunt snout, small flippers and convex-shaped tail flukes" - surely it is most distinguished by its tusk......?
- What about the females? We are discussing the body, but rephrased slightly. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The functions of the narwhal tusk have been debated, and include feeding, combat, sexual selection and acoustic sensory" - if the functions have been debated maybe say "The functions of the narwhal tusk have been debated, and may include feeding, combat, sexual selection and acoustic sensory"
- Done Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"of eastern United States" => "of the eastern United States". However, as the US didn't exist in the Pliocene era, maybe reword to something like "what is now the eastern United States"?
- Fixed, but I don't see the need for the 2nd point Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The body consists of dense blubber" - unless the entire body consists of blubber, maybe use a different word than "consists"
- Yes; exactly. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I got as far as the end of the "behaviour and ecology" section. I'll look at some more later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More commments from ChrisTheDude

"around 49,000 in Somerset Island" - do sea creatures live "in" an island? Maybe "in the vicinity of".....?
- Went with "near" Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Appendix II of Convention...." => "Appendix II of the Convention...."
- Done Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"bioaccumulation of heavy metals take place" => "bioaccumulation of heavy metals takes place" (the subject is "bioaccumulation", which is singular)
- Done Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Depictions of narwhals in paintings such as The Lady and the Unicorn, have found" - no need for that comma before "have" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I believe I've addressed all comments. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from RoySmith

Looking at sources in Special:Permalink/1234272361...

Compared with other marine mammals, narwhals have a relatively restricted and specialised diet.[58] I can't find where the source says this.
In the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, the United States banned commercial imports of products made from narwhal parts.[3] the source says "Importation of Narwhal products into the United States has been prohibited ...", i.e. not restricted to "commercial imports"
The species is also classified as endangered under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which aims to classify the risk levels of species in the country.[50][86] I searched Lukey and Crawford for "narwhal", "monodon" and "monoceros" and found none of those words. In Watt, Orr, and Ferguson, it says they are listed as "special concern", not "endangered".

In three spots checks, I found two failures to verify and one which if it had been found in the context of an otherwise positive review, I could have easily passed off as a minor mis-phrasing, but we're past that point. Firm oppose on failure to meet WP:FACR 1a: "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources"

Narwhals (Monodon monoceros) are considered to be among the most sensitive of Arctic endemic marine mammals to climate change due to their limited prey selection, strict migratory patterns and high site fidelity. First one is clearly supported there

Second one is the same thing. You don't me to use the same phrasing
Third one was my fault, I thought Special concern and Endangered was the same. The Lukey source is for the second half of the sentence.

@RoySmith: You can't oppose on that. I request another spot check. @FAC coordinators: Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this badgering? — 48 JCL 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Several editors have looked at the source to text fidelity for this article, and all have qualms. It is clear that the nomination is not moving towards a consensus to promote and so I shall archive it. I think that every cite needs checking to ensure that what it purports to support actually is covered. Before that, it may be helpful for the nominator to seek advice from an experienced editor as to just how Wikipedia citation works as there seem to be several cases above of the nominator and reviewers talking at cross purposes. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only people would do a proper source review. This nomination archived too soon. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 13 July 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.