Talk:Sea mink/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I will review this article.
• 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

I feel like that could also fit under Description, and since it's a small article, it doesn't really seem relevant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

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)

split   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think you need to add the word extinction to the section title that deals with this.
• Since it is pretty naturalistic, and we know pretty much what it looked like, I think you could put the drawing in the taxobox.

At sea cow, someone said that skeletal remains go in the taxobox for extinct species if no specimen image is available   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

I asked over at the taxobox template talk, and I think the consensus was to keep the drawing of the dental morphology than the speculative restoration   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

Alright, I'll ask there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Any preserved skins today? This page seems to show a mounted specimen:[1] If so, it should be stated, and perhaps how many there are.

it is stated, the results of a study said it was just an American mink for the record   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Any genetic work? If not, state by the cladogram what methods were use din creating it.

none that I'm aware of, I don't think genetic work is really an option considering there aren't any specimens   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm literally leaving for vacation right now, I'll be back on the 12th, so I won't be doing much in the way of editing until then. Is that okay?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

• "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.

the first description of it was listing it as a subspecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• "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?

discussed later (like where it talks about the Alaskan Mink)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• The map has no source, which is problematic.

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 talk  23:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

My computer's too slow to upload anything onto the Commons so I can't really do anything regarding images   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I found the source, fixed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Relations of the sea mink within Mustela" State in the caption if this is based on morphology.

it's impossible to base it on anything else considering there's no specimen to collect DNA from   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Give etymologies for the scientific names.
• 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?

a lot of people (Canadian field naturalist, IUCN, etc) should I pick one? I have to double check but I'm pretty sure that the source just said "people"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• " its range may have extended south of the Gulf of Maine, and may have even evolved there" And it may have.
• "Accounts from Native Americans in the New England/Atlantic Canadian regions" You state earlier it may never have lived in Canada?

keyword 'may,' no one's really 100% sure of anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• "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.

the size difference is what's impressive about the teeth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

I'm coming back on Saturday, I'll start editing then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I missed my flight so I'm stuck here until Wednesday at least. I'll start editing then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I only got wifi today... FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I fixed all the stuff above by the way (unless I said otherwise)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

I was gonna do that but it seems too long to me, should I change it anyways?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "decline and extinction", as in quagga? FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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 talk  04:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Still looks awkward. How about "hunting/exploitation and extinction"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Changed to Exploitation and extinction   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• By the way, do you see anything that would be a significant problem in FA (other than the map)? Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

I expanded the lead and moved the image, but I'm not really sure what else can be said about sea minks. Maybe someone'll think of something at FA, thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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.