"It was found on the
New England coast and the
Maritime Provinces, though its range may have stretched further south during the
last glacial period. Conversely, its range may have been restricted to solely the New England coast, specifically the
Gulf of Maine, or to just islands off of it." Perhaps you're a little too firm in the first sentence?
"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][6]" I wouldn't start with this. I think starting with the initial description date would make more sense
The second half of the paragraph (beginning at "Another study conducted in 2000") could do with some attention. It's a little repetitive, and I'm not really keen on "the study said".
I think "refuted" is a little strong; unless we have a clear consensus in the literature that a particular claim has been refuted, I think "challenged" or something might be better.
Would it not be typical for the range section to go below the description section? Description often goes above taxonomy, as well, but I quite like a taxonomy section first.
I always do it Taxonomy --> Description --> Range --> Behavior, but in this particular case I felt that Range was sort of needed after Taxonomy if people got confused, and could easily reference it. Also I kept bringin up info about its range in the Description section, so it seemed necessary to have it beforehand User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)reply
"914 millimetres (36 in) from head to tail, with the tail being 254 millimetres (10 in) long" What does your source say? I'm guessing 36 in and 10 in; if this is so, 914mm and 254mm is
false precision.
"It was described as having course fur that was reddish-tan in color, though much of it was faded from age most likely." Are you talking about the mounted mink?
" The 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." This sentence is all over the place.
"and hard-bodied marine invertebrates like the American mink, though in greater proportions" The American mink is not a hard-bodied marine invertebrate!
"The 1800s" is ambiguous between the decade at the start of the 19th century and the 19th century itself. Thus, the phrase "became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." is ambiguous between "became extinct some time around 1808-9" and "and became extinct sometime around 1880-99". Is this clearer?
Josh Milburn (
talk)
09:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Nicely done. I bring no special biological expertise to the article, but I have a few suggestions about the prose.
Lede
¶1 "The justification for it being its own species is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur." – Slightly smoother might be "The main justification for a separate-species designation is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur."
¶1 "Likewise, its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains." – Delete "Likewise"?
¶2 "or to just islands off of it." – Trim to "or to nearby islands"?
¶2 "As it was the largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders than other mink species, and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." – Trim and smooth? Suggestion: "Largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s."
¶2 "in the late 1800s" – This claim matches the lede but does not match the claim in the final section of the article.
Taxonomy and etymology
¶1 "The skull fragments used to first describe it were recovered from Native American shell middens in New England like most remains of the sea mink, however a complete specimen does not exist. Most remains are skull fragments as well." – The claim "does not exist" makes the assumption that no one can ever find one. I would also smooth this a bit. Suggestion: "Prentis based his description on skull fragments recovered from Native American shell middens in New England. Most sea mink remains, nearly all of them skull fragments, have come from middens, but a complete specimen has never been found."
¶2 "Furthermore, Graham reported that Mead et al. assumed..." – I wonder if it's strictly necessary to repeat the "et al."?
¶3 "The sea mink had various names given to it by the fur traders who hunted it, including: the water marten, the red otter, and the fisher cat." – Flip to active voice and trim? Suggestion: "Fur traders who hunted it gave the sea mink various names, including water marten, red otter, and fisher cat."
Range
Since you link Massachusetts, you should probably link Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Nova Scotia.
¶2 "Mead et. al concluded..." – Maybe drop the "et al."?
¶2 "Alternately, the sea mink may have just evolved after the last glacial period in order to occupy a new
niche." – The phrase "in order to" suggests that the mink evolved thoughtfully. Suggestion: "Alternately, the sea mink may have evolved after the last glacial period and filled a new
ecological niche."
Description
¶1 "...though its relatives and descriptions given by fur traders and Native Americans give a general idea of what this animal looked like and its ecological roles." – Smooth a bit? Suggestion: "though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles."
¶2 "...however this was found to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid by a 1966 study." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "...however, a 1996 study found this to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid."
¶4 "Mead et al. that concluded that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism." – This refers obliquely to a report in a way that is not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "Mead et al., concluding that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands, suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism."
¶4 Maybe drop the "et al." here too?
¶4 "The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than the American mink, as they had wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." – Tighten to "The sea mink's wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades suggest that they crushed hard shells more often than did the teeth of the American mink."?
Exploitation and extinction
¶1 "eventually led to their extinction, which is thought to have occurred anywhere from 1860 to 1920." – The lede says "late 1800s." They shouldn't be contradictory.
¶1 "using an iron rod with a screw on the other end" – Would "the far end" make this more clear?
Just realized this is still an issue. See
[2]. Essentially, you have "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference", but "Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates". You should make this consistent.
Vanamonde (
talk)
05:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Other sources are either high-quality scholarly sources, books from reliable publishers, or what appear to be reliable natural history publications.
Earwig's tool does not flag anything of substance. I googled a few randomly selected sentences, and found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors.
I performed a spot check on the source used for the phylogeny; the source supports the content.
I also spotchecked the Manville 1966 source. I have some minor concerns with its use:
"Its closest relative is the common mink (N. v. mink), which also inhabits the New England area." is cited to Manville. N.v mink is a subspecies of the American mink, Neovison vison. Therefore, unless N.v. is a polyphyletic taxon, this sentence makes little sense. If it is a polyphyletic taxon, then we need a source to say so. Overall, I'd say the claim here is doubtful, and should at least be attributed in the text.
That's not what I mean: if the sea mink were its own species, then it cannot, by definition, be more closely related to one subspecies (N.v. mink) of another species (N.v.) than to other subspecies of the same species. This only makes sense in light of the source's conclusion that the sea mink was not its own species, and was also a subspecies of N.v.mink. So, you need to mention that, or remove that sentence.
Vanamonde (
talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (Corrected, for the benefit of anybody reading later.
Vanamonde (
talk)
16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC))reply
I am not certain how you derive "The sea mink was the largest of the minks. However, as only fragmentary skeletal remains of the sea mink exist, most of its external measurements are speculative and rely only on dental measurements." from the Manville source, though I may be missing something.
"Remains of toad sculpins, ocean pout, and garden banded snails were the most common around their dens." That's not quite what the source says: the snails are reported as part of their diet, but not because of their presence on middens.
Again, not necessarily an error: the source reports the fish eaten as "horned pout (probably Macrozoarces americanus)" which appears to be a mismatch between common name (which, on WP, redirects to
Brown bullhead) and the scientific name (which, presumably, you used to link to ocean pout.
If you are relying so heavily upon Manville, it's probably worth mentioning his conclusion that the Sea mink is a subspecies of the American mink. This would also help resolve my first point.
Looks okay now. If I have more time, I may do another spot check, but I don't think that should be required for promotion. A general note: Dunkleosteus, you do fine work with neglected marine mammals, but this is the second time in two reviews that I have flagged issues with interpreting phylogeny. May I ask that you be a little more careful in the future, and possibly ask for advice before somebody flags it at FAC? Regards,
Vanamonde (
talk)
05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Ok this segment: The sea mink was hunted to extinction before it was formally described by scientists. Subsequently, its external appearances and behaviors are not well-documented, though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles. - has unnecessary emphasis as you've already told us (twice) that it has become extinct. Hence, it should be something like "As it vanished before it was formally described by scientists, its (external) appearance and behaviors are not well-documented. However, descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, as well as the physique/morphology of its relatives, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological role. (note also that "external" is redundant, and appearance should be singular).
The last recorded kill of a sea mink was made in Maine made in 1880 near Jonesport, and the last known kill was made in Campobello Island in New Brunswick in 1894 - I don't understand the distinction between "last recorded" and "last known"
I can split it off into a different paragraph if that'll make it better, but I've always layered it thematically because the reader's most likely looking for a time of extinction, and they're not gonna want to sort through a wall of text on killing minks to get there User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Support - this looked good when I GA reviewed it, and it has obviously been improved, so here's my support to get things going.
FunkMonk (
talk)
10:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
"It was found on the
New England coast and the
Maritime Provinces, though its range may have stretched further south during the
last glacial period. Conversely, its range may have been restricted to solely the New England coast, specifically the
Gulf of Maine, or to just islands off of it." Perhaps you're a little too firm in the first sentence?
"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][6]" I wouldn't start with this. I think starting with the initial description date would make more sense
The second half of the paragraph (beginning at "Another study conducted in 2000") could do with some attention. It's a little repetitive, and I'm not really keen on "the study said".
I think "refuted" is a little strong; unless we have a clear consensus in the literature that a particular claim has been refuted, I think "challenged" or something might be better.
Would it not be typical for the range section to go below the description section? Description often goes above taxonomy, as well, but I quite like a taxonomy section first.
I always do it Taxonomy --> Description --> Range --> Behavior, but in this particular case I felt that Range was sort of needed after Taxonomy if people got confused, and could easily reference it. Also I kept bringin up info about its range in the Description section, so it seemed necessary to have it beforehand User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)reply
"914 millimetres (36 in) from head to tail, with the tail being 254 millimetres (10 in) long" What does your source say? I'm guessing 36 in and 10 in; if this is so, 914mm and 254mm is
false precision.
"It was described as having course fur that was reddish-tan in color, though much of it was faded from age most likely." Are you talking about the mounted mink?
" The 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." This sentence is all over the place.
"and hard-bodied marine invertebrates like the American mink, though in greater proportions" The American mink is not a hard-bodied marine invertebrate!
"The 1800s" is ambiguous between the decade at the start of the 19th century and the 19th century itself. Thus, the phrase "became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." is ambiguous between "became extinct some time around 1808-9" and "and became extinct sometime around 1880-99". Is this clearer?
Josh Milburn (
talk)
09:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Nicely done. I bring no special biological expertise to the article, but I have a few suggestions about the prose.
Lede
¶1 "The justification for it being its own species is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur." – Slightly smoother might be "The main justification for a separate-species designation is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur."
¶1 "Likewise, its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains." – Delete "Likewise"?
¶2 "or to just islands off of it." – Trim to "or to nearby islands"?
¶2 "As it was the largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders than other mink species, and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." – Trim and smooth? Suggestion: "Largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s."
¶2 "in the late 1800s" – This claim matches the lede but does not match the claim in the final section of the article.
Taxonomy and etymology
¶1 "The skull fragments used to first describe it were recovered from Native American shell middens in New England like most remains of the sea mink, however a complete specimen does not exist. Most remains are skull fragments as well." – The claim "does not exist" makes the assumption that no one can ever find one. I would also smooth this a bit. Suggestion: "Prentis based his description on skull fragments recovered from Native American shell middens in New England. Most sea mink remains, nearly all of them skull fragments, have come from middens, but a complete specimen has never been found."
¶2 "Furthermore, Graham reported that Mead et al. assumed..." – I wonder if it's strictly necessary to repeat the "et al."?
¶3 "The sea mink had various names given to it by the fur traders who hunted it, including: the water marten, the red otter, and the fisher cat." – Flip to active voice and trim? Suggestion: "Fur traders who hunted it gave the sea mink various names, including water marten, red otter, and fisher cat."
Range
Since you link Massachusetts, you should probably link Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Nova Scotia.
¶2 "Mead et. al concluded..." – Maybe drop the "et al."?
¶2 "Alternately, the sea mink may have just evolved after the last glacial period in order to occupy a new
niche." – The phrase "in order to" suggests that the mink evolved thoughtfully. Suggestion: "Alternately, the sea mink may have evolved after the last glacial period and filled a new
ecological niche."
Description
¶1 "...though its relatives and descriptions given by fur traders and Native Americans give a general idea of what this animal looked like and its ecological roles." – Smooth a bit? Suggestion: "though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles."
¶2 "...however this was found to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid by a 1966 study." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "...however, a 1996 study found this to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid."
¶4 "Mead et al. that concluded that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism." – This refers obliquely to a report in a way that is not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "Mead et al., concluding that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands, suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism."
¶4 Maybe drop the "et al." here too?
¶4 "The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than the American mink, as they had wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." – Tighten to "The sea mink's wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades suggest that they crushed hard shells more often than did the teeth of the American mink."?
Exploitation and extinction
¶1 "eventually led to their extinction, which is thought to have occurred anywhere from 1860 to 1920." – The lede says "late 1800s." They shouldn't be contradictory.
¶1 "using an iron rod with a screw on the other end" – Would "the far end" make this more clear?
Just realized this is still an issue. See
[2]. Essentially, you have "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference", but "Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates". You should make this consistent.
Vanamonde (
talk)
05:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Other sources are either high-quality scholarly sources, books from reliable publishers, or what appear to be reliable natural history publications.
Earwig's tool does not flag anything of substance. I googled a few randomly selected sentences, and found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors.
I performed a spot check on the source used for the phylogeny; the source supports the content.
I also spotchecked the Manville 1966 source. I have some minor concerns with its use:
"Its closest relative is the common mink (N. v. mink), which also inhabits the New England area." is cited to Manville. N.v mink is a subspecies of the American mink, Neovison vison. Therefore, unless N.v. is a polyphyletic taxon, this sentence makes little sense. If it is a polyphyletic taxon, then we need a source to say so. Overall, I'd say the claim here is doubtful, and should at least be attributed in the text.
That's not what I mean: if the sea mink were its own species, then it cannot, by definition, be more closely related to one subspecies (N.v. mink) of another species (N.v.) than to other subspecies of the same species. This only makes sense in light of the source's conclusion that the sea mink was not its own species, and was also a subspecies of N.v.mink. So, you need to mention that, or remove that sentence.
Vanamonde (
talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (Corrected, for the benefit of anybody reading later.
Vanamonde (
talk)
16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC))reply
I am not certain how you derive "The sea mink was the largest of the minks. However, as only fragmentary skeletal remains of the sea mink exist, most of its external measurements are speculative and rely only on dental measurements." from the Manville source, though I may be missing something.
"Remains of toad sculpins, ocean pout, and garden banded snails were the most common around their dens." That's not quite what the source says: the snails are reported as part of their diet, but not because of their presence on middens.
Again, not necessarily an error: the source reports the fish eaten as "horned pout (probably Macrozoarces americanus)" which appears to be a mismatch between common name (which, on WP, redirects to
Brown bullhead) and the scientific name (which, presumably, you used to link to ocean pout.
If you are relying so heavily upon Manville, it's probably worth mentioning his conclusion that the Sea mink is a subspecies of the American mink. This would also help resolve my first point.
Looks okay now. If I have more time, I may do another spot check, but I don't think that should be required for promotion. A general note: Dunkleosteus, you do fine work with neglected marine mammals, but this is the second time in two reviews that I have flagged issues with interpreting phylogeny. May I ask that you be a little more careful in the future, and possibly ask for advice before somebody flags it at FAC? Regards,
Vanamonde (
talk)
05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Ok this segment: The sea mink was hunted to extinction before it was formally described by scientists. Subsequently, its external appearances and behaviors are not well-documented, though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles. - has unnecessary emphasis as you've already told us (twice) that it has become extinct. Hence, it should be something like "As it vanished before it was formally described by scientists, its (external) appearance and behaviors are not well-documented. However, descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, as well as the physique/morphology of its relatives, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological role. (note also that "external" is redundant, and appearance should be singular).
The last recorded kill of a sea mink was made in Maine made in 1880 near Jonesport, and the last known kill was made in Campobello Island in New Brunswick in 1894 - I don't understand the distinction between "last recorded" and "last known"
I can split it off into a different paragraph if that'll make it better, but I've always layered it thematically because the reader's most likely looking for a time of extinction, and they're not gonna want to sort through a wall of text on killing minks to get there User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Support - this looked good when I GA reviewed it, and it has obviously been improved, so here's my support to get things going.
FunkMonk (
talk)
10:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply