The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At first glance, this article has the same problem as the sea cow had, a description section which has text that should be split into a behaviour/ecology section
It isn't an issue of overall article-size, but about making it easy for the reader to find the info they are looking for. If 99% of articles have separate description and behaviour sections, there is no good reason to merge them here.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Yeah, this is mainly true for extinct species whose life appearance is not entirely known, and in the case of the sea cow, the old drawing was pretty crude. Also, we had good photos of entire skeletons that would look nice in the taxobox. But in this case, I'd say a modern drawing, which is based on a close relative, is better than a drawing of a jaw-fragment.
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)reply
I added a comment there. But I think you would get more opinions if you posted that at the paleo/extinction project talk pages.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
No problem, I'll be leaving shortly after you come back, hehe. But by the time you come back I will have reviewed the entire article, and we can hopefully wrap it up the couple of days we're both "here".
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)reply
"Debate has occurred regarding whether the sea mink was its own species, or a subspecies of the American mink. Those who argue that the sea mink was a subspecies often refer to it as Neovison vison macrodon.[5]" This is a bit strange way of opening the taxonomy section, since you immediately jump the the original description in the following sentence. Since the debate obviously occurred later, it would be better to deal with this chronologically.
"said that the size difference was insufficient evidence to classify the sea mink as its own species, and should be considered a subspecies" You should add "and that it should be considered", to make clear what you're referring to.
"furthermore, it had said that the 2000 study" This is awkwardly worded. Just say "furthermore, the study said" or some such.
"and said that they were distinct enough" Saying "concluded" would be better than the very vague "said".
"The taxonomy of minks was recently revised in 2000" Avoid ever writing "recent" in any article, you never know how long the article will exist. And is 2000 really "recent"?
"The study concluded that the size difference was caused by environmental factors" Like what?
I just used this map because the other map of the area confuses me so much because it has so many labels and isn't zoomed out enough to easily make out Canada and Maine. Nothing seems wrong to me factually with this map, but I can change it if you want. Maps are public domain if you're worried about copyright infringement, by the way. This didn't seem to be much of a problem for the Steller's sea cow map, it just needed to have the source missing tag User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk23:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)reply
I'll let it slide, but may become a problem at FAC, if you want to go there. Would be easy to just make a new map by cropping a simpler map of North America.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Regardless of what you do with the restoration, it should be offset from the image of the teeth: images should never be on the same line opposite each other (thereby "sandwiching" the text). And subjects of images should preferably face towards the text.
"around 4,300±300 years old, around 19 kilometres" Repetitive wording.
"or brought there by Native Americans" By being brought there.
"and it is said that they formerly existed" Said by who?
"most of its external measurements are speculation" Speculative would sound better.
"he dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than American minks, such as the wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades.[7]"
"the most aquatic member of the taxon" I would say group here.
It would make more chronological sense to mention hunting by native Americans before that of later settlers.
"the largest family in the order Carnivora." Why is this info relevant to this article?
"Distinctions made between the two minks is that the sea mink was larger and had redder fur. In fact, the justification for it being its own species is the size difference between it and the American mink." This is awkwardly written. Also, you state twice that it was distinct because it was larger. Could e a single sentence. Also, it seems it is distinguished by its teeth, which are not even mentioned here.
You should mention something about its behaviour in the intro.
The intro could be split into two paragraphs.
That is all, I am going on a trip from Friday night and some weeks after, not sure how my Internet will be, but I will try to close this when you have replied.
FunkMonk (
talk)
11:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)reply
I have added two comments above, but generally looks better. "Humans and extinction" seems very generic as a title, though, I would called it "interaction with humans and extinction" or some such.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Well I put "Humans and extinction" instead of just "Extinction" because one paragraph talks about extinction and the other paragraph just talks about its interactions with native americans User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk04:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Looks fine to me, I would expand it with anything if possible, since it is a bit short. I think the restoration could be moved to the description section, doesn't seem to have much to do under extinction. Also, I think you could be more specific about its behaviour in the intro, simply saying it was similar to another species doesn't really explain anything to the reader (who may not know the behaviour of the American mink).
FunkMonk (
talk)
15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Last thing, I think it should be mentioned in the intro that it is only known from skeletal fragments today, and if you can find the info, list which elements are known of the skeleton, and perhaps how many specimens exist. But I will pass now, the first point I mentioned should be done afterwards in any case.
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At first glance, this article has the same problem as the sea cow had, a description section which has text that should be split into a behaviour/ecology section
It isn't an issue of overall article-size, but about making it easy for the reader to find the info they are looking for. If 99% of articles have separate description and behaviour sections, there is no good reason to merge them here.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Yeah, this is mainly true for extinct species whose life appearance is not entirely known, and in the case of the sea cow, the old drawing was pretty crude. Also, we had good photos of entire skeletons that would look nice in the taxobox. But in this case, I'd say a modern drawing, which is based on a close relative, is better than a drawing of a jaw-fragment.
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)reply
I added a comment there. But I think you would get more opinions if you posted that at the paleo/extinction project talk pages.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
No problem, I'll be leaving shortly after you come back, hehe. But by the time you come back I will have reviewed the entire article, and we can hopefully wrap it up the couple of days we're both "here".
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)reply
"Debate has occurred regarding whether the sea mink was its own species, or a subspecies of the American mink. Those who argue that the sea mink was a subspecies often refer to it as Neovison vison macrodon.[5]" This is a bit strange way of opening the taxonomy section, since you immediately jump the the original description in the following sentence. Since the debate obviously occurred later, it would be better to deal with this chronologically.
"said that the size difference was insufficient evidence to classify the sea mink as its own species, and should be considered a subspecies" You should add "and that it should be considered", to make clear what you're referring to.
"furthermore, it had said that the 2000 study" This is awkwardly worded. Just say "furthermore, the study said" or some such.
"and said that they were distinct enough" Saying "concluded" would be better than the very vague "said".
"The taxonomy of minks was recently revised in 2000" Avoid ever writing "recent" in any article, you never know how long the article will exist. And is 2000 really "recent"?
"The study concluded that the size difference was caused by environmental factors" Like what?
I just used this map because the other map of the area confuses me so much because it has so many labels and isn't zoomed out enough to easily make out Canada and Maine. Nothing seems wrong to me factually with this map, but I can change it if you want. Maps are public domain if you're worried about copyright infringement, by the way. This didn't seem to be much of a problem for the Steller's sea cow map, it just needed to have the source missing tag User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk23:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)reply
I'll let it slide, but may become a problem at FAC, if you want to go there. Would be easy to just make a new map by cropping a simpler map of North America.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Regardless of what you do with the restoration, it should be offset from the image of the teeth: images should never be on the same line opposite each other (thereby "sandwiching" the text). And subjects of images should preferably face towards the text.
"around 4,300±300 years old, around 19 kilometres" Repetitive wording.
"or brought there by Native Americans" By being brought there.
"and it is said that they formerly existed" Said by who?
"most of its external measurements are speculation" Speculative would sound better.
"he dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than American minks, such as the wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades.[7]"
"the most aquatic member of the taxon" I would say group here.
It would make more chronological sense to mention hunting by native Americans before that of later settlers.
"the largest family in the order Carnivora." Why is this info relevant to this article?
"Distinctions made between the two minks is that the sea mink was larger and had redder fur. In fact, the justification for it being its own species is the size difference between it and the American mink." This is awkwardly written. Also, you state twice that it was distinct because it was larger. Could e a single sentence. Also, it seems it is distinguished by its teeth, which are not even mentioned here.
You should mention something about its behaviour in the intro.
The intro could be split into two paragraphs.
That is all, I am going on a trip from Friday night and some weeks after, not sure how my Internet will be, but I will try to close this when you have replied.
FunkMonk (
talk)
11:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)reply
I have added two comments above, but generally looks better. "Humans and extinction" seems very generic as a title, though, I would called it "interaction with humans and extinction" or some such.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Well I put "Humans and extinction" instead of just "Extinction" because one paragraph talks about extinction and the other paragraph just talks about its interactions with native americans User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk04:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Looks fine to me, I would expand it with anything if possible, since it is a bit short. I think the restoration could be moved to the description section, doesn't seem to have much to do under extinction. Also, I think you could be more specific about its behaviour in the intro, simply saying it was similar to another species doesn't really explain anything to the reader (who may not know the behaviour of the American mink).
FunkMonk (
talk)
15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Last thing, I think it should be mentioned in the intro that it is only known from skeletal fragments today, and if you can find the info, list which elements are known of the skeleton, and perhaps how many specimens exist. But I will pass now, the first point I mentioned should be done afterwards in any case.
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.