Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Asian river dolphin/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2023 [1].

South Asian river dolphin

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Asian river dolphins aren't as well known or as studied as their Amazonian brethren but they are fascinating and unique in their own right. I've compiled the most important information on these rare animals from the best sources. Have at it! LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Platanista_gangetica_noaa.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Delphinapterus_leucas_NOAA.jpg
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The former is credited to a photographer rather than the agency - was this a work for hire? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:South_Asian_river_dolphin_size_comparison.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this illustration? Ditto
  • File:Vaquita_swimming_through_the_void._(Phocoena_Sinus).png, File:Ankylorhiza.jpg
Removed all. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto File:Subadult female spectacled porpoise.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pontoporia_blainvillei.jpg needs a US tag
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its a picture of a museum model with the background and holding string removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Models. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
"South Asian river dolphins are stocky in build with broad, square-ending pectoral fins, elongated, slender rostras, and shallow, triangular dorsal fins" here, you're using commas to separate items in a list as well as adjectives to describe some of these items, so you should instead use semicolons to separate list items Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps "slit-shaped"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's whats used in the source. I'd prefer to paraphrase more. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that's not a widely understood adjective, like if I look up "cleft-shaped", google tells me it means a V-shaped indentation which is not what you're going for here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77, done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal

[edit]
Sources
  • The "fossilworks" site is just a portal. The citation should be to either the database or both the portal and the underlying database.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is currently citation #3 (Braulik et al) is cited 12 times and references a large page range (38 total pages). This does not, in my opinion, meet verifiability standards.
It is a peer-reviewed journal article. They don't need specific page citations like books. Hog Farm? LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to ping) IMO it's somewhat desirable to narrow down page ranges beyond that. I try to cite individual pages in my FA nominations (which are in the history sphere), but I believe the standard in biological FAs is to not unless the page range is ridiculous. I personally wouldn't consider this a deal-breaker as a reviewer. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I personally cite individual pages, and I was under the impression that citing multiple pages was limited to roughly 5 or so. It makes it rather difficult for me, at least, to verify the information in the article matches the citation given when the page range is nearly 40. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for Bio article is to cite pages for books but not journal articles. I recall being told that I've reached a point where I don't need spotchecks anymore, having done FACs for over ten years now. LittleJerry (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wah, ha, ha. Whenever I do a source review I spotcheck a few cites. No matter how experienced the nominator or how many FAs they already have. And as a source reviewer I would throw a 40 page range straight out. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Merriam-Webster citation (currently #4) does not include relevant information. You're citing a dictionary, not a generic website.
It is being use for an etymology cite, which I have done in a dozen other FA articles. Hog Farm? LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to ping) I don't see how you're suppose to format this other than how it's currently formatted. Online dictionaries and encyclopedias are sometimes structured quite different than the old print tome, so I don't see why there'd be an expectation to cite it like it was accessed via a printed work. It's not like this is in a standard ebook format. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about this: "Platanista". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved 23 December 2022. Merriam-Webster themselves recommends using this is the name of the work. (See "Cite this Entry" on the page.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pilleri et al citation (currently #5) goes to a 31 page total range.
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content
  • I think this article covers all major topics. Nice work!
  • Should the date that the dolphin was listed as endangered be included? Currently, the article just states that "as of 2022, the IUCN Red List of mammals lists both South Asian river dolphins as endangered." I know that NOAA added the Indus River Dolphin to a different endangered species list in 1991 (see here). Maybe you can find the information for the IUCN list?
2022 is the latest update on their status. The history of the status of the individual species are not relevant. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with you that it is irrelevant. The Indus River dolphin is one of the most endangered cetaceans, so something about this should be included in the section on conservation. The history of its endangerment demonstrates how well conservation is going and how long the dolphin has been at risk of extinction. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IUCN only has its most recent assessment. Nothing on Wayback prior to 2022. Anyway this is more relevant for the Indus river dolphin article. LittleJerry (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright
  • Someone copied this entire article here. This is not an issue with the article—I'm simply noting it here that you didn't copy this page.
  • Copyright spot checks done. No copyright infringement found.

Happy to support. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

Science entries make up a disproportionally small amount of featured articles and lists, so I'm always glad to see a nomination like this.

  • "a 2021 study re-analyzed" Shouldn't that just be "reanalyzed"?
  • "major differences in the structure of their skulls" --> "major differences in skull structure" more concise
  • mitochondrial DNA is linked twice
  • "Full body (above)" --> "(top)" may be more apt as both images are above the caption
  • "River dolphins likely traveled from the Ganges River basin to the Indus" --> The rivers or river basins—whichever is more appropriate—may need to be linked. Some of the rivers are linked later, and might need to be linked here in their first mention instead. I would just check
  • "clicks spaced 10 to 100 ms apart" --> I think "milliseconds" should be spelled out before the abbreviation is used

That's all. Good work. ~ HAL333 06:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, fixed all. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dwai

[edit]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They range from the Himalayan foothills to the Ganges Delta in Bangladesh, India, and southern Nepal." This sentence is slightly confusing. The range starts from Himalayan foothills (in Southern Nepal and India) and ends in the Ganges Delta in Bangladesh and India. However, the sentence in the article can be interpreted as if the range ending in Southern Nepal.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde93

[edit]

Looking forward to reading this. Please feel free to revert and discuss any copyedits I make. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we lack information on their first scientific descriptions?
Changed. Lebeck has priority as Braulik (2021) states. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on differences in skull structure, vertebrae" wondering if this is number of vertebrae, or something else; if number, could be worth clarifying.
Clarified LittleJerry (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wondering if we can supply an image for each tip of the phylogeny; also, as these are examples and not the entirety of the taxon, is there a way you can make the taxon name appear when hovering? Is alt-text supported within a cladogram?
There are no good or free images I can use. See image review above. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their numbers peaked around the early Miocene" number of species, or abundance of fossil specimens?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the classification as two species accepted by more than the paper's authors? If not, some minor reframing may be in order; taxonomy is dreadfully messy, and changeable, we shouldn't be definitive if it's unjustified.
Yes. See the IUCN and Google scholar. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be really nice to have a map of the Indus river and its barrages, or failing that, at least a more detailed map of the system. On a related note; I assume the range map in the infobox is a contemporary one, and the caption should say so.
A map of the Indus river is more relevant for the Indus river dolphin article. Added "current". LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They can be found in waters as deep as 30 m (98 ft) or more" a confusing sentence; do they prefer shallower waters up to 30m, or deeper?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "South Asian river dolphins appear to be active throughout the day" sounds like a personal observation: "thought to be"?
"Appear to be" is shorter and sounds better than "are thought to be". LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Echolocation signals are not frequently used as the fish..." I assume from context this means "not frequently used at the surface", might be worth
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "substrate" is a technical term meaning many things based on the context; can you link/explain?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for prose, I'll do another scan once you're through with these. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, finished. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning for more: I believe there is a little more information that could be mined from sources such as these [2], [3], particularly related to distribution and conservation. In particular, the information about the threat of bycatch and direct competition with fisherman for prey and fresh water. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added some more. I believe I have written enough on distribution and habitat. Any more information belongs in the articles on the individual species. LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a full source review, lacking time at the moment, but: unsure about the Aisha/Khan source, as it does not appear to be peer-reviewed. If I'm not mistaken, there are several papers reviewing similar information; can it be replaced? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It still fits under RS. Not every source needs to be peer reviewed (eg books) and its only being used for two cites. LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me, notwithstanding the final comment which I'm not entirely convinced about; let's see what a source reviewer has to say about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that Reaper Eternal already reviewed the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

You invited me, and I'm looking forward to take a closer look than for the DYK review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read it now, and my only concern is the taxonomy; knowing little, it might be better for me to read first the end, about family and superfamily, and then about the difficulties in defining the species. But that's minor. Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 and Dunkleosteus77, will you finish your reviews? LittleJerry (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2022 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/South_Asian_river_dolphin/archive1&oldid=1132040802"