On the referencing, all the refs are simple except for refs [38] and [118], which use subsidiary page numbering in the text. This jars somewhat (and looks very academic). It might be better to list these reused refs as "Sources" and to use a Harvard style link to automate those discreetly. Alternatively, ref [118] could be replaced with a single page range, and ref [38] with separately numbered full citations.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
08:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Specific comments
Lead
"distinct taxon or systematic grouping" - near-synonyms. Perhaps better to say "
paraphyletic".
I don't see the need to say it twice, but if you think the near synonyms are necessary that's up to you.
Would suggest a small cladogram to indicate paraphyletic grouping - all that's needed is an outline showing Placentalia with superorders and example orders, e.g. Paenungulata contains Proboscidea (elephants) and Sirenia (dugongs, etc). This would show the 3 orders of living marine mammals scattered in the evolutionary tree of placental mammals. Could have small images alongside each included marine and terrestrial order to make the point.
"The term was coined ..." Since the term Cetartiodactyla isn't the title of this article, the sentence is somewhat off-topic here. Actually there are 5 sentences on the topic of the combined grouping, probably too much, for the same reason; suggest revisiting the text to see if the message can be stated more compactly (well, cetaceans evolved from early ungulates).
Pinnipedia split off 50 mya but became aquatic 20-25 mya. Maybe these dates should be side by side, with a brief note on what happened in between. (If we don't know what the evolutionary link is, how do we know the 50 mya date? Is that molecular?)
I mean, can we have a brief word about how the early terrestrial pinnipeds lived before they grew flippers and other recognizably pinnipedian adaptations like closeable nostrils and waterproof fur?
"Sound travels differently": paragraph could avoid "a number of" and "most notable", and say simply "have developed adaptations" and then give examples - the obvious ones are echolocation, ability to make loud clicks without expelling air, loss of external ears. There is scope here for a diagram or photograph
The anatomy diagram is splendid. I meant, the section is long enough to afford space for another image. You could add a subsection heading and "main" link for "Echolocation" too if that makes it easier - not a bad idea probably - and say a little more on that important topic.
"Some marine mammals have retained four weight-bearing limbs (such as polar bears and otters) and can walk" would be better as "Some marine mammals such as polar bears and otters have retained ..."
"All cetaceans are carnivorous and predatory." One might suppose the two usually went together... It's remarkable that these predators evolved from ungulate-like ancestors. Might be worth mentioning if there's research on early (omnivorous?) Cetartiodactyla.
there is some speculation, I'll add that in later.
added
Some related items in one paragraph: 1: "are the only marine animal .. which it often does". Please choose singular or plural and stick to it. 2:"the sea otter has a loose pouch of skin that extends across the chest which they use" should be "which it uses". 3: "a rock that is used to" is a somewhat clunky phrase, if not an
WP:Easter egg for
tool use by sea otters. 4: It's followed by "There, the sea otter eats...": where is "there"? Please copy-edit the paragraph.
"decimated": suggest "much reduced". Decimated properly means "reduce by 1/10" but is often taken to mean "reduce to 1/10", an awkward ambiguity at best. It feels too rhetorical (
WP:NPOV) for the article.
"For example, a decline ... no direct evidence." - a conjectural instance is not a good example. If there's nothing better, at least leave out the "For example, " at the start.
section implies a USA-centric worldview. Would be better to have a more general title (say, "Legal protection") and to balance American, European, and other legislation and practice.
Yes it was, but many other countries passed similar legislation around that time, and "the main points" of this need to be addressed. The section's text is unbalanced, not just its title.
"two sea otters holding paws". Perhaps a mention of
anthropomorphism would be in order here. I suppose in the context the citation to YouTube is inevitable, though it might be better to have a reliable secondary source.
Ok, thanks for the link, that's what I thought. Wikilinked. It is essential that we distinguish "x said otters were cute" from "an editor thought otters were cute", which is
WP:OR. I'm not sure we've quite arrived there in this case, I may copyedit slightly. I have given the default upright size to two possibly-cute images for the same reason, to avoid any appearance of
WP:OR: the images must be there to inform, not to express an editor's opinion. These images must not be resized post-GA.
the source said that they were cute (and heartwarming). The pinniped photo was referring to the various tricks they are trained to do, not because the sea lion is cute. I chose the military dolphin photo because it was either that or a sort-of faded sea lion photo (and there was already a sea lion photo literally above it). I didn't choose images because they were cute, I chose them because they were goodUser:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk22:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the clarification, that's all fine. I already struck out the item; however, it would be wise to state explicitly that the source stated "cute and heartwarming" (or whatever it did actually say) with a citation right beside it, so that any editor reading the article in future can see where that came from. I've adjusted the pinniped (sealion) caption to read purely factually for the same reason.
Thanks.
Since the anthropomorphism issue actually affects many marine mammals (it seems people find dolphins and seals cute, as well as otters) it would be best to put a brief cited paragraph about
anthropomorphism (visibly wikilinked) at the top of the 'In captivity' section, and perhaps to move all the 'cute' discussion there.
The phrase "[dolphins] have a friendly appearance" probably belongs in the 'anthropomorphism' section/paragraph also; whether you move it or not, it needs citing explicitly (by repeating ref 138, if the phrase came from there).
As this seems to have been abandoned, I'll close it now. If anybody wishes to take up the thread, just submit it to GAN, and feel free to ping me. There's not much left to complete.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
20:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
On the referencing, all the refs are simple except for refs [38] and [118], which use subsidiary page numbering in the text. This jars somewhat (and looks very academic). It might be better to list these reused refs as "Sources" and to use a Harvard style link to automate those discreetly. Alternatively, ref [118] could be replaced with a single page range, and ref [38] with separately numbered full citations.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
08:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Specific comments
Lead
"distinct taxon or systematic grouping" - near-synonyms. Perhaps better to say "
paraphyletic".
I don't see the need to say it twice, but if you think the near synonyms are necessary that's up to you.
Would suggest a small cladogram to indicate paraphyletic grouping - all that's needed is an outline showing Placentalia with superorders and example orders, e.g. Paenungulata contains Proboscidea (elephants) and Sirenia (dugongs, etc). This would show the 3 orders of living marine mammals scattered in the evolutionary tree of placental mammals. Could have small images alongside each included marine and terrestrial order to make the point.
"The term was coined ..." Since the term Cetartiodactyla isn't the title of this article, the sentence is somewhat off-topic here. Actually there are 5 sentences on the topic of the combined grouping, probably too much, for the same reason; suggest revisiting the text to see if the message can be stated more compactly (well, cetaceans evolved from early ungulates).
Pinnipedia split off 50 mya but became aquatic 20-25 mya. Maybe these dates should be side by side, with a brief note on what happened in between. (If we don't know what the evolutionary link is, how do we know the 50 mya date? Is that molecular?)
I mean, can we have a brief word about how the early terrestrial pinnipeds lived before they grew flippers and other recognizably pinnipedian adaptations like closeable nostrils and waterproof fur?
"Sound travels differently": paragraph could avoid "a number of" and "most notable", and say simply "have developed adaptations" and then give examples - the obvious ones are echolocation, ability to make loud clicks without expelling air, loss of external ears. There is scope here for a diagram or photograph
The anatomy diagram is splendid. I meant, the section is long enough to afford space for another image. You could add a subsection heading and "main" link for "Echolocation" too if that makes it easier - not a bad idea probably - and say a little more on that important topic.
"Some marine mammals have retained four weight-bearing limbs (such as polar bears and otters) and can walk" would be better as "Some marine mammals such as polar bears and otters have retained ..."
"All cetaceans are carnivorous and predatory." One might suppose the two usually went together... It's remarkable that these predators evolved from ungulate-like ancestors. Might be worth mentioning if there's research on early (omnivorous?) Cetartiodactyla.
there is some speculation, I'll add that in later.
added
Some related items in one paragraph: 1: "are the only marine animal .. which it often does". Please choose singular or plural and stick to it. 2:"the sea otter has a loose pouch of skin that extends across the chest which they use" should be "which it uses". 3: "a rock that is used to" is a somewhat clunky phrase, if not an
WP:Easter egg for
tool use by sea otters. 4: It's followed by "There, the sea otter eats...": where is "there"? Please copy-edit the paragraph.
"decimated": suggest "much reduced". Decimated properly means "reduce by 1/10" but is often taken to mean "reduce to 1/10", an awkward ambiguity at best. It feels too rhetorical (
WP:NPOV) for the article.
"For example, a decline ... no direct evidence." - a conjectural instance is not a good example. If there's nothing better, at least leave out the "For example, " at the start.
section implies a USA-centric worldview. Would be better to have a more general title (say, "Legal protection") and to balance American, European, and other legislation and practice.
Yes it was, but many other countries passed similar legislation around that time, and "the main points" of this need to be addressed. The section's text is unbalanced, not just its title.
"two sea otters holding paws". Perhaps a mention of
anthropomorphism would be in order here. I suppose in the context the citation to YouTube is inevitable, though it might be better to have a reliable secondary source.
Ok, thanks for the link, that's what I thought. Wikilinked. It is essential that we distinguish "x said otters were cute" from "an editor thought otters were cute", which is
WP:OR. I'm not sure we've quite arrived there in this case, I may copyedit slightly. I have given the default upright size to two possibly-cute images for the same reason, to avoid any appearance of
WP:OR: the images must be there to inform, not to express an editor's opinion. These images must not be resized post-GA.
the source said that they were cute (and heartwarming). The pinniped photo was referring to the various tricks they are trained to do, not because the sea lion is cute. I chose the military dolphin photo because it was either that or a sort-of faded sea lion photo (and there was already a sea lion photo literally above it). I didn't choose images because they were cute, I chose them because they were goodUser:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk22:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the clarification, that's all fine. I already struck out the item; however, it would be wise to state explicitly that the source stated "cute and heartwarming" (or whatever it did actually say) with a citation right beside it, so that any editor reading the article in future can see where that came from. I've adjusted the pinniped (sealion) caption to read purely factually for the same reason.
Thanks.
Since the anthropomorphism issue actually affects many marine mammals (it seems people find dolphins and seals cute, as well as otters) it would be best to put a brief cited paragraph about
anthropomorphism (visibly wikilinked) at the top of the 'In captivity' section, and perhaps to move all the 'cute' discussion there.
The phrase "[dolphins] have a friendly appearance" probably belongs in the 'anthropomorphism' section/paragraph also; whether you move it or not, it needs citing explicitly (by repeating ref 138, if the phrase came from there).
As this seems to have been abandoned, I'll close it now. If anybody wishes to take up the thread, just submit it to GAN, and feel free to ping me. There's not much left to complete.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
20:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply