Talk:Sperm whale/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'm reviewing this article. I enjoyed reading it and my overall impression is that it's very close to GA standard, although a few serious things need to be dealt with. I know that what follows looks like a lot, but I've tried to spell things out in detail, in order to minimise the risk of confusion. If the existing refs are all OK, by far the hardest part of the job has already been done. -- Philcha (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Checklist

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall structure

 Done The structure looks haphazard, for example:

• Section "Description" has 3 separate items about size ("Sperm whales are the largest toothed whales, ..."; "Sperm whales are among the most sexually dimorphic ..."; "The largest bull Sperm Whale verified and accurately measured ..." I think these should be combined at the start of the section, and then other aspects of external appearance can be dealt with.
• I was looking for something on respiratory system, as such deep divers need respiratory specialisations, and saw this a bit later under "Diving and breathing".

 Done I think the following structure would be better, and would like your comments before you put much work into improving other aspects of the article:

• Explanation of the name
  "Spermaceti is the semiliquid, waxy substance found in the head of the Sperm Whale. The name derives from the late Latin sperma ceti (both words actually loaned from Greek) meaning "sperm of the whale" (strictly, "sperm of the sea monster"). The common name for the species is actually an apocopation of Spermaceti Whale. Early beach-combers mistook the substance for the whale's semen. Spermaceti is found in the spermaceti organ or case in front of and above the skull of the whale and also in the so-called junk which is right at the front of the whale's head just above the upper jaw. The case consists of a soft white, waxy substance saturated with spermaceti oil. The junk contains spermaceti oil as well as connective tissue." This item also needs an explanation for how early beach-combers found spermaceti.
• Description
  • Size
    Combining the 3 separate items mentioned above. What's the next largest toothed whale and how big is it (with citation, please)?
  • External appearance
    Shape incl head; fins and flukes; skin and ridges / wrinkles.
  • Teeth and jaws.
  • Respiration and diving.
  • Brain and senses
    Including possible echolocation
  • Functions of spermaceti
    In this position the sections on Respiration and diving and on Brain and senses set the scene for theories about the functions of spermaceti.
• Ecology, behaviour and life history
  • Distribution
    • This section should explain why they avoid the Black Sea and there's a good ref at Unexpected changes in the oxic/anoxic interface in the Black Sea. This combination of anoxia and high sulphide is known as "euxinic" (adj.), derived from Pontos Euxeinos, which was the ancient Greek name for the Black sea; in this article "euxinic" and its deriviation are just "nice to haves", omit them if they cause any awkwardness.
  • Reproduction and life cycle
    Start with lifespan, as this gives perspective to gestation, suckling, sexual maturity and (in females) sexual availability cycles.
  • Social behaviour
    In this position it also sets the scene for defence agaist orcas etc.
  • Feeding behaviour and prey
    Including depth and duration of dives.
    Re taking fish off lines, the technical term is kleptoparasite - if you have time, you might find it amusing to add sperm whales to kleptoparasite, where the largest animal currently is the lion!
    Please explain how sperm whales feed on krill.
  • Non-human predators
• Taxonomy and naming
  • The bit about P. catodon vs P. macrocephalus should be much shorter. I've seen the history of this at Talk:Sperm Whale and realise it's a compromise solution to quite a heated discussion. I suggest you start by copying and pasting the whole of it into a footnote (i.e. between a pair of "ref" tags - be careful to remove any nested "ref" tags). That way both sides of the discussion will still be represented but it may then be possible to reduce the main text to e.g. "Although Linnaeus recognised / recognized four species in his 18th century work, Systema Naturae, later experts concluded that there was only one. There is currently a debate about whether this should be named P. catodon or P. macrocephalus, two of the names used by Linnaeus, and both names are widely-used in books and articles."
  • I don't see the need for the big quote from Moby Dick.
• Phylogeny
  • Means "evolutionary family tree".
  • There are enough sources, e.g. Sperm Whale Phylogeny Revisited: Analysis of the Morphological Evidence, and you can find more by Googling for "sperm whale Physeter phylogeny evolution".
  • If the sources provide enough info, a cladogram like the one at Mollusc#Phylogeny would be good. If you have not used {{clade}} before, I can do this once the text and sources are in place.
• Relationship with humans
  • Historical hunting
    Starting with ambergris and "Spermaceti was much sought after by 18th, 19th and 20th century whalers. The substance found a variety of commercial applications, such as candles, soap, cosmetics, machine oil, other specialized lubricants, lamp oil, pencils, crayons, leather waterproofing, rust-proofing materials and many pharmaceutical compounds." as this explains why these whales were hunted.
    This whole section needs to be shorter as there's main article on whaling, but we can look at that once the overall structure looks right.
  • Current conservation status and measures, limits on hunting
  • Quick mention of sperm whales as kleptoparasites on fishing lines.
  • Cultural importance
  • Watching Sperm Whales

 Done - structure now OK. -- Philcha (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox

• If I correctly understand the conditions of use for Image:Sperm whale1b.jpg, the caption has to mention the artist's name and link it to his web site.
• I understand the reasons for "see text" below the species names. It should link to the text that discusses the names, using {{anchor}}.
• The range diagram needs a citation, but fortunately we already have one waiting to be re-used.

References

I'll check these when the structure has been sorted out.

Use / copyright status of images

To be dealt with when the main content is all done.

Lead

To be dealt with when the main content is all done. -- Philcha (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think the structure you propose makes sense. The one question I have is whether the "Explanation of the name" section should be a subsection under "Taxonomy and naming". But because the spermaceti is so important, it may make sense to make that the first section. Rlendog (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad the structure I proposed makes sense to someone else :-)

For the benefit of non-zoologist readers I'd put "Explanation of the name" near the top. -- Philcha (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see it's now almost in the structure discussed above, and I think it reads better that way - what do you think?

I notice that section "Ecology, behaviour and life history" is not quite in the order discussed above. Have you found reasons for preferring the present order, or have you just not had time to work on this section yet?

I've just realised that I forgot something important - a new sub-section "Fossil record" is needed. I'd create a new main heading "Evolutionary history" immediately after "Taxonomy and naming", and the new section would contain "Fossil record" and " Phylogeny". How did I forget this, as I mainly work on paleontology articles? If you have any problems getting sources let me know, as I can probably get material from academic journals.

Please let me me know when you think the structure is right, and then I'll review the sections in detail.

BTW is this article meant to follow US or UK English spelling and usage? I notice Rlendog is an American, but I'd prefer to be sure before I start going through sections in detail. -- Philcha (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved Reproduction, so now the "Ecology, behaviour and life history" section is structured per your suggsetion, except for non-human predators. Since there are so few predators, but the social structure is dictated heavily by the few predators (to young) that do exist, I left the predators within the Social Structure section.

With respect to fossil record, what would go there that isn't (or wouldn't be) in Phylogeny? Rlendog (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Hi, keeping the predators within the Social Structure section looks very reasonable.

Re fossil record, it's what fossils have been found that have been classified as sperm whales or their immediate ancestors, their estimated ages, and their locations and whatever is know about the environments in which they lived. Until recently fossils were the main evidence for phylogeny. Molecular phylogenetics has also assumed an increasingly important role in recent years. However if there were a conflict between the fossil record and the molecular phylogenetics analyses there would be a problem that would have to be resolved. -- Philcha (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of information on fossils. Most of what I have comes from The Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. The ancestors/relatives of Sperm Whales from the fossil record per that source are the ones listed under Phylogeny. I can add a table showing the estimated ages. I have to see what, if anything, is available regarding locations and environments. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Google is a Wikipedian's best friend - I suggest the search words "physeter sperm whale fossil". Google Scholar is the best bet as it will avoid sites that are unlikely to be regarded as WP:RS. If it also gives hits from Google Books, check out the ones with "Limited Preview" in the bottom left corner - I've got useful material for free from £000s worth of books - and copy the URLs into the citations, with accessdate of course. But skip the Google Books entries with "Snippet view" or "No preview" in the bottom left. -- Philcha (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I now have the article organized properly. I also found some additional information on fossil evidence that I included (thanks for the tip on Google Scholar). Rlendog (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing I could not find was an explicit reference to Baird's Beaked Whale being the 2nd largest toothed whale. That can be gleaned simply by going through the measurements of the largest whales (including Wikipedia's own List of cetaceans). I hope that is not a problem. Rlendog (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the fossils! I was surprised to see no mention of Pliocene or Pleistocene physetrids, but my own search got nothing. Must be a gap in the fossil record.

 Done Re the 2nd largest toothed whale, it was only a "nice to have" so I won't make a fuss about it.

I'll start work on the detailed review now - might take me a day or so before I post it here.

Thanks for the excellent work you've put in. -- Philcha (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

US or UK spelling

I'll assume UK spelling as the usual test cases (e.g. "metres", "colour") indicate UK. So I'll change any US spellings I see to UK.

• I typically use US, but the convert template uses UK and other editors also seem to use UK, so that is fine with me. Rlendog (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of name

•  Done "Sperm whale" should not be capitalised except at the start of sentences and quotes - as some one at the Talk page said, it's like "cat" and "dog". I'll do this at the end of the review.

• The issue is a bit more complicated than the cat/dog example suggests. This has been a contentious issue on WikiProject Mammals. As a result, the approach that is supposed to taken is to "respect the original or primary authors; do not up and change something without notification, as you may be reverted." Since the article originally capitalized Sperm Whale when referring to the species (as opposed to the clade including the Dwarf Sperm Whale, Pygmy Sperm Whale and fossil forms as well), I retained that convention.Rlendog (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for drawing my attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization. However the conclusion there looks contrary to normal English usage. In the example quoted there, I'm used to seeing "tiger" but Panthera tigris, where of course Panthera is the genus name. Ironically Tiger uses "tiger". If I were a reader I'd wonder what was going on. I've just checked some other wikiprojects and: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species adopts what I'm used to seeing, e.g. "Bengal tiger"; Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles#Names_and_titles explicitly follows this; Wikipedia:BIRD#Bird_names_and_article_titles prefers capitals but says "Note that the convention for capitalisation of names applies primarily to articles about birds, not to the whole encyclopedia", and authoritative external pages it cites suggest the bBird community is the odd one out. I'm inclined to ask about this on one of the WP:MOS Talk pages. How would you feel about that? -- Philcha (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with that, but be aware that it is likely to devolve into a big battle with no consensus in the end. I haven't been on Wikipedia for that long but have already seen this debate raised a couple of times (there should be some in the Mammal archives at least, and maybe in the MOS archives too). That is why the guidelines for the Mammal project ended up what it is - because there was no hope of getting consensus and the issue just becomes a big battle whenever it's raised. Personally I agree with not capitalizing, but I have come to accept the capitalization (and usually do so now) for the sake of peace. Rlendog (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about rationality by stealth - simply de-capitalise in this article, except for starts of sentences and other exceptions recognised in normal English grammar? I can do that in a couple of minutes using WikEd. -- Philcha (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not touch that landmine. I doubt stealth would work on an article like this anyway. The attached page has a list of more nasty debates on this subject, if you are interested, including on WP:MOS and an attempt to get ArbCom to opine - Talk:List of bats#Taxonomy and the use of capital letters in common names. And in one o fthe discussions there is a reference to WP:CETA adopting the capitalization as its standard (which seems to be hinted at on the project page, but not too clearly).Rlendog (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, you know the backstory. It strikes me as crazy that something so visible can can be allowed to be inconsistent, while WP:MOS is full of rules about what kind of dashes to use and other minutiae that readers won't see. --Philcha (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of name

•  Done I've re-arranged the wording a little, as the heading offers to explain "sperm whale", and "spermaceti" id spart of that explanation. I've also cut a few superfluous words (e.g.(2 X "actually"). What do you think?
•  Done I've also wikilinked "connective tissue" and semen.

Size

•  Done I've re-arranged the wording a little, to handle all aspects of maximum size, incl shrinking bulls, before dealing with sexual dimorphism. What do you think? BTW I'll look at image placement at the end; in this case I think the data takes precedence over a not very infomrative image.

• I like it. Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done For consistency I've also made metric measurements the primary ones. One exception so far: the Nantucket jawbone, where the museum states the total length in ft.
•  Done I've unlinked "metres" and "metric tons" as: in spring 2008 WP policy swung against "overlinking"; the conversions make it plain that these are units of measurement; they're well known.
•  Done Some of the refs do not use Wikipedia:Citation templates and I've changed them to do so. Policy statements are a little unclear on this but all the GA reviews I've seen have been firm on this. NB if a citation contains a URL it should contain an accessdate param with data in the format yyyy-mm-dd (incl leading zeros). I'll change them in this section to ensure you have some examples. In later sections I'll simply note whether there are some that do not use Citation templates, as this is the editor's responsibility. You might want to add a link to Wikipedia:Citation templates on one of your user pages for ease of reference.
•  Done "The largest bull Sperm Whale verified and accurately measured" cites a book, The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats, but does not give any indication of where in the book. Page numbers are the usual method, but I've persuaded reviewers that for reference works like this the title of a section is often more useful, as it is less likely to change between editions. If you go for this approach, use {{citation}} with the contribution parameter specifying the section - {{cite book}} does not currently recognise the contribution parameter (the citation templates have been allowed to drift out of synch - grrrr!). If you can't speficy a location, you may have to look for an alternative reference. Because of this doubt I haven't applied a Citation template to this ref.

• I need to look into this. This statement wasn't one I added so I have to see what I can do to support it or remove it. But there may be other sources I can find. Rlendog (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't able to access the book, but I'm not sure the sentence supported by this reference was necessary. The length given is also the maximum length cited above (with a non-problematic source), and while the weight is greater, the decrease is whale size due to whaling is addressed later in the same paragraph. So I removed it. Rlendog (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done I've put the detailed size comparision in a table. I placed the table at the top to avoid a large gap at the bottom if the user views the article in a wide monitor with the browser at full width. What do you think?

• I like the table.Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Sources quoted at the start and end of the (new) first para differ on max sizes. Which do you consider the more authoritative?

Whitehead is probably the most authoritative source on Sperm Whales. I interpreted the discrepency as meaning that Sperm Whales can acheive a length of 20.5m, but that this is rare and most whales are less than 18.3m. But I can remove the latter length if that is confusing. Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That OK. I accept your interpretation. -- Philcha (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done The "dimorphism" para quotes a range of lengths for newborns, which is very odd as an average is a single number. Can you please resolve this.

• I don't have a source for a specific average size, just the range. On the other hand, an average of "4" would be within rounding of either, as well as the average of the two ends of the range, so this is probably an appropriate number to use. Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

External appearance

•  Done This is not quite in the order we discussed, and the some of the sentences looks a little awkward, e.g. switches between singalur and plural. Can you please give it a little TLC.

• Sorry. I missed that earlier. I reorganized and made a few wording changes to sigularize the section.Rlendog (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Just a comment: the web sources used in the section would not be accepted if this were a Featured Article review. For zoology articles the best sources are what you find via Google Scholar, and using these from the start wherever possible will save you from having to redo stuff later.

Jaws and teeth

•  Done Contains a lot of unattributed quotation from Sperm Whale Facts. Can you please rephrase, to avoid copyright problems.

• I'll need to look into that. Rlendog (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reworded Rlendog (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Please use citation template {{cite web}} for Sperm Whale Facts.

• Done.Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Respiration and diving

• {done}} I don't think Whale physiology counts as a WP:RS. University web pages can be tricky. If you can show that they're written by members of the faculty, they're usually fine. But the authors of this page are not in the faculty list, and there are other things that suggest it may have been written by students - the garish background image and the form of the URL http://www.uwrf.edu/biology/electives_dir/444_dir/VSmith/Page1.html are both suspicious. Can you please find other sources. Google Scholar for "sperm whale physeter respiration dive diving" (w/o quotes) should help. For example I quickly found a free copy of an academic journal article Elements of beaked whale anatomy and diving physiology and some hypothetical causes of sonar-related stranding which, despite its title, has some good stuff on diving adaptations etc, in sperm whales (use PDF's built-in text search for "sperm") - nitrogen-induced damage; counter-current heat exchange systems (veins run next to arteries and suck some heat out of them, reduces heat loss through the skin). If you find academic material that looks interesting but you can't access the full text, give me a shout and I might be able to help.

• I updated the links. I was not able to find anything about directing bood to the brain during a dive in any of the Google Scholar papers, but hopefully the source I found on regular Google is okay. Rlendog (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid ZipcodeZoo.com doesn't look like WP:RS as it's a wiki - the "edit" and "upload" links are faint and at the bottom of the page (sneaky b******s!) - and when I clicked "edit", it appeared willing to do so without a log-in. See their "about" page.

It's a pity Whale physiology doesn't count as a WP:RS - an article you've cited (Clarke, M. (1978). "Structure and Proportions of the Spermaceti Organ in the Sperm Whale" (PDF). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 58: 1–17. Retrieved 2008-11-5. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)) confirms right at the end that diving whales' lungs are much smaller in proportion to mass than in most mammals. Googling for e.g. "sperm whale physeter tidal volume" and "sperm whale physeter hemoglobin" may get replacement sources. --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had much luck. I did find another reference, but I am not sure if it is more reliable. I also found one source that may be promising, but I can't access it - Respiration in Diving Animals [1]. These may also be useful, but again, I can't access them -

THE PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF DIVING TO DEPTH: Birds and Mammals [2]

DOES DIVING LIMIT BRAIN SIZE IN CETACEANS? [3];

RESPIRATION IN DIVING MAMMALS [4]

On the other hand, this source may confirm or contradict this, but I can't see page 239 and the table on page 240 seems to indicate a lower concentration of hemoglobin, but I'm not sure I am reading it right. Physiological Strategies for Gas Exchange and Metabolism [5] Rlendog (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought I already added this, but maybe didn't save. I actually found a reference in a reliable book for the sentence in question. It refers to deep diving cetaceans, rather than specifically Sperm Whales, but Sperm Whales should definitely be covered. Rlendog (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Brain and senses

•  Done "Facts about the sperm whale". Retrieved 2007-03-19. is another source that doesn't qualify as WP:RS and you need to find replacement(s), I'm sorry.

• I'll need to look into this.Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Replaced refs. Rlendog (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Need to explain "when body size is factored in" - there are several ways of relating brain size to body size, see e.g. encephalization quotient.

• I'll need to look into this.Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Noted proportion of brain to body size and specifically compared encephalization quotient to a few other animals (with refs). Rlendog (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I've taken the liberty of adding "non-human anthropoid primates" as humans are so exceptional. --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Please format the Cranford, T.W., (2000) ref (first of 2 on echolocation) using a citation template - no need fo rpage numbers here, I think, as the chapter title is given.

• Done.Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done The image is illegible at reduced size. The technique I've used has the advantage that the text is now more legible and it's easier to adjust the scale.

• It looks good.Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Functions of spermaceti

•  Done Another use of Whale physiology - can you please find a WP:RS

• Need to investigate. Rlendog (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Replaced. Rlendog (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• But they don't appear to cover the whole process. I've added a ref (same author) that tells the whole story, fortunately I have access to the full text. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done *I've done a little copyedit. NB I've also added an {{anchor}} for a "see below" above. Section's OK now --Philcha (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Distribution

•  Done I've done a little copyedit. --Philcha (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Social behavior

•  Done I've done a little copyedit.
•  Done I removed "transient" from "Pods of transient Orcas ..." as the cited source does not suggest transient pods are more dangerous than territorial ones (although I have a vague memory of a TV documentary saying something like this). If you have a source that supports this distinction, please add it.

• The removal is fine. There are plenty of sources that - among the Orcas off British Columbia and the West Coast of the US - it is the transient Orcas that feed on mammals and the resident Orcas that feed on fish. But the transient/resident distinction is really only applicable to the Orcas in this area, and is really not a necessary distinction in this context anyway. Rlendog (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Section's OK --Philcha (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Feeding

• You might like to use Cephalopods as Prey. III. Cetaceans: "Broad estimates show that the biomass of oceanic cephalopods consumed annually by the largest odontocete, Physeter catodon, may be over twice the biomass of fish caught by man."
•  Done The idea of sperm whales directly consuming krill looks implausible (most krill 1-2 cm long; a few species up to 15cm), and Google got me nothing - can you confirm it with a citation? Current status of Odontocetes in the Antarctic suggests significant indirect consumption via predation on squid. In The diet of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in southern Australian waters, section "Non-cephalopod component of the diet" remains neutral.
• Re sperm whales stealing fish, I prefer Sneaky Cetaceans as a source since it's published by a university. Couldn't find anything on Google Scholar.

 Done *I added the Sneaky Cetacean ref. Thanks for the lead. I retained the Whale Buffet one since that specifically addresses the "new video footage has been captured of a large male Sperm Whale "bouncing" a long line, to gain the fish". I can remove that sentance, but I'm not sure that's necessary. Rlendog (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please convert all citations to use citation templates.

• Done Rlendog (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done The link for GaskinD. & Cawthorn M. (1966) "Diet and feeding habits of the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus L.) in the Cook Strait region of New Zealand" is dead, redirects to main page. Google can't find this paper. I suggest you just remove the link.

• Done Rlendog (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• The link for Dannenfeldt K.H. (1982). "Ambergris: The Search for Its Origin" is dead, no sign on Google. The best I could find was [Strange but True: Whale Waste Is Extremely Valuable: Scientific American</ref>
•  Done Duplication of some material about echolocation. OTOH the "stun" theory fits well here.
• I'll copyedit this section once the content issues are resolved.

• I Done need to look into these issues. I'll remove the krill reference. It does come right from the Whitehead book, but seems odd to me as well. Since I don't think anyone suggests that krill is a critical part of the Sperm Whale's diet, I don't think there is any harm in removing it. Rlendog (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy and naming

• I've done a small copyedit.

Evolutionary History

• There was a reason why I placed sub-section "Fossil record" before "Phylogeny" - sometimes the scientifc debate about phylogeny uses some of the names presented in "Fossil record". Often that turns out to be no more than a little insurance policy. But in this case Sperm whale family cites Bianucci, G. & Landini, W. (2006) Killer sperm whale: a new basal physeteroid (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Late Miocene of Italy, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 148: 103–131, which argues that some of the fossil species pre-date the split between the modern sperm whale's ancestors and the Kogiidae (pigmy and dwarf sperm whales). If true, this means that some of the fossils cannot be part of a monophyletic clade Physeteridae and would have to be summarised in a cladogram as e.g. "Fossils similar to sperm whales" or "possible ancestors of sperm whales and Kogiidae". Their "ancestral" group includes Zygophyseter (already mentioned, Late Miocene), Zygorhiza, Squalodon (not mentioned in "Fossil record"), Diaphorocetus, Aulophyseter (already mentioned)
• The article can't just ignore this alternative, see WP:NPOV.
• Since I normally edit paleontology articles and I probably have better access to journals than than you do, I'll handle this lot tomorrow morning, while your'e still asleep (I'm a Brit, so 5 hours ahead of you). BTW I found Bianucci & Landini's from Sperm whale family - quite often you can useful info from otherwise unimpressive WP articles, it's worth looking around.

• I should have used the name Physeteroidea, which refers to the monophyletic clade including the Sperm Whale, Dwarf Sperm Whale and Pygmy Sperm Whale, rather than the name Physeteridae, which is the name for the family including the Sperm Whale, but not necessarily (depending on the source) the Dwarf and Pygmy Sperm Whales. I fixed that. Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• What do you think of my edit? --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I like it! One question. Should the cladegram include a branch for "Other Kogiidae" for the extinct species of the family, or would that be overkill? I can add it if you think it is appropriate. You've already done plenty of work on this. Rlendog (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• In terms of cladistic principles, yes. But neither source mentions any extinct Kogiidae, and this artcile's about the sperm whale, so on balance I'd say no. -- Philcha (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical hunting

• This is well-sourced, but too long for anyone but a specialist historian. Before trimming it, I suggest you paste the whole section into Talk:Whaling in America and Talk:Whaling (after resolving Jonas Poole's comments at Talk:Sperm_Whale#Confusion_over_Spermaceti_over_sperm_oil.3F so the editors of these pages can merge it in. After that I suggest the main points are:
• Prior to the early 18th century, very little hunting of Sperm Whales took place, mostly by indigenous people of Indonesia - BTW, what is the source for this?
• Story that sperm whaling started accidentally around 1712, and became an established business arougn 1720. Where?
• Advent of spermaceti candles (before 1743) led to large-scale hunting, for example a report from Nantucket in 1744 records "45 spermacetes are brought in here this day".
• Next para ("American sperm whaling soon spread from the east coast of the American colonies ...") loks OK, not much fat.
• Next para ("Sperm whaling in the 18th century began with small sloops carrying only a pair of whaleboats ...") looks too detailed for an article about a whale rather than whaling. The important points are the increasing size of the ships and the extended geographical range. Is there any way to quantify the size of the 18th cent and 19th cent ships (number of crew; typical catch per voyage)?
• Paras beginning "Sperm whaling involved the above-named ships searching for Sperm Whales on ..." and "Hunting for Sperm Whales in this manner could be dangerous ..." look superfluous for an article about a whale rather than whaling (see "focussed" in the GA criteria).
• Last 2 paras are fine.
• Don't forget to check that all sources are present (no dead links) and correctly formatted.
• A map showing the location of Nantucket would be good, for the benefit of us non-Yankees.

• I'll need to investigate these. I also want to get feedback from Jonas Poole, who wrote most of this section. Rlendog (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Can you also please ask Jonas Poole to help explain these distinction between spermaceti and sperm oil (incl what sperm oil is), see his comment at Talk:Sperm_Whale#Confusion_over_Spermaceti_over_sperm_oil.3F. -- Philcha (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I cut back the section. If more needs to be cut, perhaps the (current) paragraph starting "Sperm whaling in the 18th century began..." is less necessary. I also added a citation for the indigenous whaling prior to the 18th century, a map showing Nantucket, and the (necessarily general) location of the early Sperm Whaling in 1720. I'll address the spermaceti/sperm oil confusion tomorrow or over the weekend. Rlendog (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Current conservation status

•  Done Just minor copyeding need - I'll do this.
•  Done Don't forget to check that all sources are present (no dead links) and correctly formatted.

• Checked. Didn't find any problems. Rlendog (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cultural importance

• Just minor copyeding need - I'll do this.
• On checking the refs I see nothing to support Leviathan=Sperm whale, and Leviathan gives quotes that suggest other associations. I don't think Disney's Pinocchio is WP:RS.

• I found some better refs on Google scholar, but did have to reword a bit. Rlendog (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• If no source actually said something like "The fearsome reputation perpetuated by Melville was based on bull whales' ability to fiercely defend themselves from attacks by early whalers, sometimes resulting in the destruction of the whaling ships," the sentence is [WP:OR]] or WP:SYN.

• Need to search for a source. If I can't find one, I'll delete the sentence. Rlendog (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"The face that sank the Essex: potential function of the spermaceti organ in aggression" (already cited) accepts that Moby Dick was a sperm whale and comes within a micrometer of saying it - and has graphic accounts of 2 well-known sinkings. Might be expedient to focus more on the whale and less on Melville.

Late-breaking news - What is a Whale? Moby-Dick, Marine Science and the Sublime explicitly says Moby Dick was a sperm whale! (I'll leave you to format the ref). --Philcha (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Rlendog (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't forget to check that all sources are present (no dead links) and correctly formatted.

• All links work. I reformatted the one citation that needed it. Rlendog (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Watching Sperm Whales

• Just minor copyeding need - I'll do this.
• Don't forget to check that all sources are present (no dead links) and correctly formatted. -- Philcha (talk)

• Checked the sources. No problems. Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed some the changes you've made, and your sensible responses on some issues. I started marking some items  Done then realised I was asking for an edit conflict, so I'll go through it later to-day, making the time difference work in our favour. -- Philcha (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've checked off a few more issues. Thanks for the good work. Not much left to do, the main items are the length of "Historical Whaling" and fitting the lead to the main text. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I found a couple of problems in "Cultural importance" - sorry for missing them before. --Philcha (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

This article is thorough, well-referenced and a good read - I still find it interesting at the end of a GA review! Thank you to all who have contributed, especially to Rlendog for handling most of the issues raises in the review. I'm about to mark this as a GA.

A couple of areas could do with further improvement:

• The "Historical hunting" section is still rather long. The changes made during the review have shifted the focus from the whalers towards the impact on the whales, which is right for this article. Further improvement will require detailed examination of the text, almost at the level of "how does this word justify its presence?"
• There's some duplication between "Brain and senses", "Functions of spermaceti" and "Feeding" about echolocation and the spermaceti organ. I've moved the "sexual selection" sentence to "Functions of spemaceti". Apart from that, right now I can see no obvious solution, and leave it to you guys.

All the best, --Philcha (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - - - Please place all review comments / responses above this line - - - - - - -