Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steller's sea cow/archive2

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2017 [1].

Steller's sea cow

[edit]
Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article a couple months back. It failed, but Jens Lallensack has been working on it (but I don't think he's co-nominating it) and now I'm sure that it's ready for FAC. It was really close last time, there just wasn't really enough time, so I'm hoping that I can resolve all the problems left. Also, this article's about a species of dugong that went extinct in recent times. Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sabine's Sunbird

[edit]

Okay then:

  • In the lead, maybe mention that the range was or may have been wider in pre-history
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, information about its size is split over two paragraphs. Consolidate perhaps?
I just removed it in the second paragraph because it was basically repeating info   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the slow-moving and easily capturable Steller's sea cow maybe easily caught is plainer English?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sea cow's spine is believed to have had 7 neck, 17 thoracic, 3 lumbar, and 34 caudal (tail) vertebrae. I'm curious why this is only believed.
the source said "axial skeleton probably consisted of"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • consuming the tougher stem and holdfast after they washed up on the shore in heaps. I'm curious about this, did they nearly beach themselves to reach it?
Oops, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steller researched the wildlife of Bering Island while he was shipwrecked there; it would be good to know how long he was marooned there.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two taxonomic trees labeled Relations within Sirenia that show different things. Maybe the second one which excludes the manatees should be relabeled.
to what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cladogram only shows relationships within Dugongidae, so probably that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • an extinct tropical sea cow that lived near California What does near California mean here? Off California? Oregon? Mexico?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I unlinked duplicated ice ages link, perhaps since there are multiple ice ages and you are referring the most recent one based on the piped link you could a) use the more technical name too or b) put a date range in there? Also ice age probably shouldn't be capped (technically neither should Dugong but it'll be a cold day in hell when I require that to pass)
fixed the dugong thing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are minor issues so support should be simple enough once they're addressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Why repeat the lead image?
it's relevant in both places   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pallas_Sea_Cow.jpg needs a US PD tag
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the source of the data used to create File:Commander_Islands_Map_-_Russian.png?
I asked at the Commons and they said that contours of land masses (like the one pictured) are not protected by copyright so it doesn't need a source line   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking about the source for copyright reasons, but for verifiability - think about this request as a {{citation needed}} tag on the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added citation needed tag   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Steller_measuring_a_sea_cow.jpg: if this is dated 1925, it can't have been published before 1923 - tag needs reviewing
Added US non-renewal instead. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Extanstellersseacowea.jpg needs a US PD tag
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ледяной_плен_с._097.png: where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
Russian Academy of Sciences, 1879   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Waxell_-_Stellersche_Seekuh.jpg needs a US PD tag and the source link is dead
added PD tag but I can't find another link, should I just remove it and leave the ref for it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked archive.org? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I'll try asking the Village Pump at the Commons   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They found it, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hydrodamalis_gigas.jpeg needs a US PD tag
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
where do I put the author's date of death?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this was published in 1895, why use a 1923–1963 tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by William Harris

[edit]

In the section titled "Ecology and behavior", there are some dead hyperlinks (red) that would benefit from being unlinked. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks D. (I report that nothing exciting has been turned up through DNA analysis of the remains of this extinct mammal, including one conducted this year.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • Current ref 1 has a major red flag "Überarb, Germany: Books on Demand". What makes this reliable?
The book seems pretty well-sourced to me, I don't see what the publisher's got to do with it. It cites only journals as far as I can see so I'd call it reliable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "books on demand" is usually a self-publishing service. We consider self-published sources to be problematical, and often unreliable. See Wikipedia:RSSELF. See books on demand site, World Cat entry showing no libraries holding the book, and Other world cat entry showing one library in the whole world holding it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basically citing an encyclopedia rather than combing through all the German article sources he lists or American university publications. Basically, instead of trying to create 50 different sources of which most are inaccessible, I just bulk-cited one that's accessible and easy-to-read. I could try finding individual sources in the bibliography if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the guy writing it is an expert in the field (and given the lack of libraries holding the book even if he was, it's pretty clear that this work isn't one that scholars are using) I'm going to have to say it's unreliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll replace it (but later, this might take a little bit)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found the sources he used, done (and I moved the rothauscher link to the External links section)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear rothauscher isn't used as a ref anymore   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 28 (Britannica.com) is this really needed? There are three other sources on the information it's attached to.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portrayals in media section - why were these specific protrayals chosen out of other mentions? Per MOS:POPCULT, we need to be careful with these sorts of sections. I've always found a good rule of thumb is to only list those pop culture mentions where a third-party source discusses the impact that the portrayals have on our understanding of the article subject.
because that's all there is as far as I can tell (or at least the only ones that don't just take a small glance at them)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But what do they tell us about the subject of the article? What commentary in third-party sources discuss how these poems/etc help our understanding of the article subject? Near as I can see, they are just trivial mentions without any coverage in sources to show how the sea cow information is informative. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a short film about them that got nominated for awards is definitely notable, as well as being discussed by W. G. Sebald   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: hello?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: bonjour? Is silence support or waiting for changes?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support just for a source review - I will oppose if the sources aren't reliable, but otherwise it's just a check that the sources are reliable. Much the same as an image review. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One comment: The lead image should be of the skeleton, since it is a physical remain of the creature. This is the case for other extinct animal articles. The only better alternative would be the live animal itself (eg quagga). LittleJerry (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, may look better if you just use the one from the description section (and remove it from there), looks repetitive now, and the one in the taxobox is not as good. Drawings from life of actual specimens can be good for the taxobox sometimes, but in this case, it looked a bit weird that it was used two times.FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: As Dudley Miles raised a few concerns last time, I'd like to check if there is anything further they would like to add here? Additionally, I just noticed that the nominator's first FA never had the usual spot check for accurate use of sources and avoidance of close paraphrasing. As this article's first FAC only had a partial spot-check, I'd appreciate it if someone could do another. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Josh Milburn

[edit]

I glanced at the article when it was first nominated and it now looks much better. I wouldn't call myself a sentimental person, but I have a real soft spot for these animals and I am saddened by their story. As such, I'm thrilled to see such a well-developed article, and I commend you for your work and tenaciousness in bringing this here a second time.

  • "however this may have been more expansive during the Pleistocene epoch" It's not clear what the this refers to.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Holocene epoch it was among the largest mammals, reaching weights of 8–10 metric tons (8.8–11.0 short tons) and lengths of up to 9 metres (30 ft)." The tenses are odd, here. How about something like "Steller's sea cow would reach weights..., making it one of the largest mammals of the Holocene." Is the mention of the Holocene even necessary? I fear it will turn off some readers.
removed the Holocene part   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Steller's sea cow had a thicker layer of blubber than other members of the order." Orders are yet to be mentioned
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its skin was brownish-black in color, with white patches on some individuals. Its skin" Repetition
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As in all sirenians, the scapula of Steller's sea cow was fan-shaped-- larger on the posterior side and narrower towards the neck." Is that double dash in accordance with MOS:DASH?
I just replaced it with "being"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's a synonym   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossils of Pleistocene Aleutian Island sea cow populations were larger than those from the Commander Islands," The fossils were larger? I assume you mean that the fossils indicate that the animals were larger.
no, the bones they found were larger (which would mean that they themselves were larger)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zoologist Eberhard von Zimmermann described the sea cow's specific name as gigas in 1780, and placed it in the genus Manati" Is this the first formal species description? If so, how about something like "Zoologist Eberhard von Zimmermann formally described Stellar's sea cow in 1780 as Manati gigas."?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(shown below)" should probably be removed, per WP:SELF.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a member of Vitus Bering's as a painter and surveyor" This needs attention!
I forgot the word "crew"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling with something, and the description section (and various pictures) have left me unclear: if the sea cow was upright, were its tail "fins" vertical (like a shark) or horizontal (like a whale)?
horizontal like a whale, but everyone drew it vertically (I assume) to emphasize the shape of the tail. One of the illustrations has it horizontal in perspective (which is noted)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bone fragments and accounts by native Aleut people suggest that sea cows also historically inhabited the Near Islands,[33] potentially with viable populations that were in contact with humans in the western Aleutian Islands prior to Steller's discovery in 1741." I think this throws doubt on the first sentence of the lead. I wonder if the fact that Aleut people may have had contact with Stellar's sea cow could be added to the lead?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2004 study reported that sea cow bones discovered on Adak and Buldir Islands were found to be around 1,700 and 1,600 years old respectively." Too much hedging; could this be simplified?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of Steller's sea cows in the Aleutian Islands may have caused the Aleut people to migrate westward to hunt them, possibly leading to the sea cow's extinction in that area, assuming the animals survived in that region into the Holocene epoch.[9]" This is interesting; what is the evidence that Aleut people hunted the animal? I'd like to hear more. Frankly, if we have any information, I'd support a whole subsection discussing the Aleut/sea cow relationship.
should that be a subsection of extinction or should there be a section with interactions with Europeans and another section with interactions with indigenous?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I split it into Interactions with Europeans, Interactions with aboriginals, and Other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there's no archaeological evidence but it's speculated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has also been argued that the decline of Steller's sea cow may have been an indirect effect of the harvesting of sea otters by the aboriginal peoples." What aboriginal people? Where? (If you're talking about pre-Steller interactions, this could go in the section I proposed above.)
indigenous peoples of the arctic
  • "Another event potentially leading to extinction of Steller's sea cow, specifically off the coast of St. Lawrence Island, was the onset of the Medieval Warm Period which reduced the availability of kelp. However, the Siberian Yupik people who have inhabited St. Lawrence island for 2,000 years may have simply hunted the sea cows into extinction, as the natives have a dietary culture heavily dependent upon marine mammals.[29]" And this. I feel this section is a little bit all over the place.
  • "the sale of unfossilized bones is generally prohibited" How/why? I don't follow.
unfossilized bone and other marine mammal products are protected by the marine mammal protection act   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Alaska, however, native artisan products made from these bones are legal to sell in the United States. As some the material is not actually from Steller's sea cows, the trade is regulated.[43]" This doesn't read well, and seems oddly specific.
The one exception to the rule is native artisan products, which seems notable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reordered the sentences, and did a bunch of copy editing in this section to remove redundant sentences. Still might need a bit of work but it is much better now. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a tiny bit patchy for me, but it's clear that some great work has gone into it. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the current European/aboriginal split doesn't quite work; you could change it to something like "Pre-European contact" and "19th century". Changing the title of the section to "Interactions with humans and extinction" would also make sense, given as some of the discussion isn't really about humans at all. So I'd go for something like: 

-Interactions with humans and extinction
--Pre-European contact
--18th century
--Later reported sightings
--Commercial value
--Portrayals in media [Or: Portrayals in fiction]

The information is good, it's just a matter of working out how to present it. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I thought the European/aboriginal split worked nicely   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my place to force any changes, but I'm struggling to understand why you have placed the European material before the aboriginal material (and are all these people Europeans?), and it seems odd to group discussions of global climate with discussions of sea cow/aboriginal contact. (Also, if you have a source, it'd be great if you could open the aboriginal discussion by noting that information about contact with sea cows prior to Stellar's "discovery" is patchy.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The aboriginals section is basically all speculation, but the European section is not really speculation at all, so it has more weight in my opinion. The global warming point just seemed relevant when discussing the St. Lawrence extirpation. I fixed the opening of the section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "discovered in 1741". This is Eurocentric. Perhaps "first encountered by Europeans in 1741".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their range may have been more expansive during the Pleistocene epoch". This is over-cautious. According to the text below, Pleistocene fossils have been discovered in several areas.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is possible that Steller's sea cow and humans interacted before their discovery on the Commander Islands. This is also over-cautious. It seems clear below that there was interaction, and that the sea cow may already have been on the way to extinction from aboriginal hunting when Europeans arrived.
not really, it's sort of speculation (that's why it later says "...there is no archaeological evidence")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and raising its young" Is this needed? Presumably all mammals raise their young.
mammals can be r-selectors   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tongue was only 30 centimetres (12 in) in length and remained in the back of the mouth, unable to reach the masticatory (chewing) pads." This suggests that the tongue was a vestigial organ, and appears to rely on the Miller translation of Steller's work, as I could not find it in the other works cited. I raised this in the previous FAC. Steller was clearly not reliable with figures as he gave alternative figures of 4 and 24.3 metric tons as the sea cow's weight. In addition, the translators comment that Steller's work contains errors as it was published after his death and consequently not revised. The translation was based on a type written copy of the original Latin, as the original was not then available, although it is now online. As there are many modern sources which can assess Steller's findings in relation to the 27 skeletons discovered and what is known about other syrenians, I do not think this should be regarded as an RS and should not be used as a source.
Are you sure? This is literally the only source anyone can really use to talk about behaviour and description beyond what can be seen from bones. Everyone who talks about Steller's sea cow cites this book. I'll take it down if you insist but I think you should reconsider   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly everyone who talks about Steller's sea cow is bound to cite his book, but modern experts will select the points they accept. Forsten and Youngman cover behaviour, and you could have cited them for much of what you say. What they leave out such as the tongue they may not consider reliable. What points do you consider important and reliable which you cannot cite to a secondary source? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many lineages died out". Lineages of what? You have only mentioned one species.
changed to "populations"
  • "The Pallas Picture is the only known drawing of Steller's sea cow believed to be from an actual specimen." This is worded as if you have already mentioned the Pallas Picture. I suggest "A drawing of Steller's sea cow by Peter Simon Pallas is belived to be the only illustration based on an actual specimen."
well that's just the opening sentence, the rest of the paragraph delves into its origins. It just starts out with why it's important (I can still change it if you want me to)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Commander Islands remained uninhabited until 1825 the Russian-American Company relocated Aleuts from Attu Island and Atka Island there." The grammar has gone wrong.
I forgot the "when," fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the Siberian Yupik people who have inhabited St. Lawrence island for 2,000 years may have simply hunted the sea cows into extinction, as the natives have a dietary culture heavily dependent upon marine mammals." This is unreferenced. I see it is in the paper on the local extinction off St Lawrence Island, and is an alternative explanation to the decline of kelp in the medieval warm period, which you discuss in the next paragraph. I suggest you make clear that they are alternative explanations, and merge the two paragraphs. This would mean merging the 'Interactions with aboriginals' and 'Other' sub-sections.
@J Milburn: I literally just separated the Extinction section into those three sections because J told me to, and i think that it's much better because there are many factors as to why the sea cow went extinct (and basically all of it's speculation outside of sea otters and Europeans as far as I can tell)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hunting and the medieval warm period are alternative explanations in a paper on the extinction of the St Lawrence population. Separating them is misleading. Also the first part is unreferenced, and the second suggests the warm period may have led to a wider extinction, which is not in the source, and is very unlikely as the sea cows had survived many earlier even warmer periods. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flooding paragraph is speculation based on your interpretation of an original source. Steller did not suggest that deaths from flooding were significant enough to affect the population. The paragraph should be deleted.
Well it was one way they did die, and he did say that it wasn't that many. I made it more clear that it wasn't a major factor   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steller was in Kamchatka immediately after the 1737 tsunami, the largest and earliest ever recorded in the area. His speculation that it was a regular event and that these shaped the mountains are valueless, and illustrate the dangers of amateurs such as ourselves using original sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
okay fine it's been deleted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Other' sub-section is a ragbag. The first paragraph belongs with the one before, the second is POV speculation, the third is not 'other' at all but a summary of the situation when Steller arrived. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That section's been deleted 15:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "collection died down after 1900". "died down" sounds a bit odd to me. How about "declined".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would leave out the 'Portrayals in media' section as none of the items seem notable, but other editors may disagree.
Well a mention by Kipling and W. G. Sebald seemed notable to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Scanning through, I notice that some references are not in ascending numerical order. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, so I haven't changed anything but it is worth checking; most, but not all, articles place references in order but it is not a FA requirement. Finally, although there has been no formal source review, I think Dudley Miles's review is comprehensive enough, and covers the sourcing enough, to make this unnecessary now. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2017 (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/Steller%27s_sea_cow/archive2&oldid=816009750"