Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polar bear/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 September 2023 [1].

Polar bear

edit
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have another well-known animal, the top predator of the Arctic and icon of climate change. I've put off doing this article for a long time but a couple months ago I began rewriting it. We already have Knut (polar bear) as an FA, and its time for the species itself to take its rightful place on the mammal list. I wish to have this as a TFA for International Polar Bear Day on February 27. Special thanks to WereSpielChequers and Danbloch. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack and any more reviewers, please add your four ~ at the end of each bulletin so I can reply to each easier. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens

edit
  • The bear is called nanook by the Inuit. The Netsilik cultures have different names for bears – Do the Netsilik also use the word "nanook", since they are Inuit, but have these other words in addition?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different subspecies have been proposed including Ursus maritimus maritimus (Phipps in 1774), U. m. marinus (Pallas 1776). – Why aren't these listed in the taxonbox, while an extinct, also questionable subspecies is listed? And should there be an "and" instead of the comma?
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With its carnivorous, high fat diet; the species has less copies – need , instead of ;?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heading "Natural history": Isn't "natural history" a term with a much broader scope? It surely includes evolution, but of all things, this section is under "taxonomy" instead. I suggest to rename it into "Behaviour and life history" or similar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Natural history refers to the animal in its environment. LittleJerry (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that some people use this term this way. But I doubt this is what the average reader will understand. Look in the dictionary [2] how many definitions there are, most of them very broad. Why use this vague term that can mean anything, when more precise alternatives are available? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that the maximum running speed is only 20 km/h. That seems too low. For example, [3] estimate 30–40 km/h.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The paper gives this as an extimate though, and explicitly says it was not measured. We have to make clear it's an estimate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ursus maritimus maritimus and U. m. marinus However – dot missing
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sexual dimorphism in the species is particularly high compared with most other mammals – Can we remove the "particularly", or is there something else that is also high?
Some other mammals like elephant seals have higher sexual dimporhism. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Male polar bears have larger heads than females. – Proportionally, I assume? And maybe this information is better placed together with the sentence on sexual dimorphism?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Male polar bears have larger heads than females. The snout profile is curved, resembling a "Roman nose". – Two pieces of information that don't fit the reading flow (the text before and after this is about something else; this seem to have been inserted inside but destroys the logical succession of information. Can it be placed somewhere else?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They move around by walking or galloping. – The implication of this sentence would be that they lack a trot, in contrast to most other larger mammals. Can you check this? If so – it should be explicitly mentioned, as this is the main point.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an important point, though. This paper [4] explicitly states that they never trot. Can we add this back in, stating that they walk and gallop but not trot? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The feet are hairier than in other bear species, which allows then to walk on snow and sea ice – "which allows them"? Also, please specify what the function is: Traction, insulation, or both?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Males have significantly longer hairs on their forelegs – longer compared to what? Their hindlegs or the hairs of females?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • given that they appear to mostly encounter low-frequency sounds. – Needs information. Why? Where do these low-frequency sounds come from?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not very webbed. Not important. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the apex predator of the Arctic – What about orcas, those are apex predators of the Arctic as well?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fat reserves allow polar bears to fast for months. – This piece of information is a bit lonely and isolated. I think it is relevant in context of the low-food period during summer, and could be better placed where this is discussed?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inside of these shelters can be around 1.5 m (4.9 ft) around – With "around" you mean the circumference?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't this very (or even impossibly) small when the ceiling height is 1.2 m? The circumference should be greater than twice the ceiling height, right? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
mistake. Its diameter LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Increased ice mobility may result in less stable site for dens – "sites"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2018 study found that ten percent or less of prime bear habitat in the Chukchi Sea is vulnerable to a potential spill, but could harm – I think there is a grammar issue, as it basically says that bear habitat would "harm" which makes no sense.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • polygraphs – link?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it links to the correct article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Svaland – What is Svaland? You mention it two times but without link.
Changes, its Svalbard. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the children's book series/movies/merchandise of The Little Polar Bear, which got very popular in Europe; worth mentioning?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find much. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The Russian article has something but English sources for that stuff are hard to find. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist

edit

My admiration always goes to those willing to take on the big topics, especially one with so much call for judicious summarising. Hugely knowledgeable and generally very clear throughout. My main concerns are the heavy reliance on primary sources for scientific claims, which I've explained in a little more detail below; it would also help clarity if certain people, places and concepts were more fully introduced and explained for non-expert readers. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tidyup
  • Suggest briefly introducing people by (some or all of) period, nationality and profession on first mention: the Welsh naturalist Thomas Pennant, the Swedish taxonomist Carl Linnaeus, the British explorer Constantine John Phipps.
I have before, but was told to stop in a previous FA. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a deal-breaker. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to its adaptations to a marine environment, some have placed the polar bear in its own genus Thalarctos: I think we want a comma before Thalarctos.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Phipps in 1774): this looks like parenthetical citation to me, which is deprecated. What's lost by putting these into footnotes?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mitochondrial DNA studies in the 1990s and 2000s have supported the status of the polar bear as a derivative of the brown bear, finding that some brown bear populations were more closely related to polar bears than other brown bears, particularly the ABC Islands bears.: the three citations cited here look like primary sources to me (that is, the studies themselves rather than someone else talking about the studies). This isn't a medical article, so WP:MEDRS doesn't strictly apply, but that page points out that primary sources are particularly unreliable for scientific studies, since it's common for their results not to be replicated and so for their conclusions to be discarded later. Can we cite to a secondary source? This issue pops up a few times in that section (in fact, it seems to be almost entirely cited to primary sources).
You mean I'm not supposed to cite scientific articles? What? I cited several scientific articles in my other FAs with no problem. I would really like to get a second opinion. @FAC coordinators: ? LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert, but I thought replication was more of an issue with experiments than descriptive studies. UndercoverClassicist, what source would you prefer for this information that would state the mainstream scientific view? (t · c) buidhe 17:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point; I'll have a look through and see if any of the cited articles actually report an experiment - please consider this one shelved for now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some are experiments (Owen, M. A.; Swaisgood, R. R.; Slocomb, C.; Amstrup, S. C.; Durner, G. M.; Simac, K.; Pessier, A. P. (2014). "An experimental investigation of chemical communication in the polar bear), some (most?) aren't. I think there's some wisdom in what WP:MEDRS says: Ideal sources for [scientific] information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. It's not a deal-breaker for me, but I'd encourage the swapping in of secondary sources (books and review articles, in particular) if and when those exist. After all, it's not all that uncommon for the results of a project or investigation to get through peer review to publication, only then to be widely rejected by the academic community for some methodological reason or other, and that holds both for strictly experimental work and that which is more descriptive. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on this a bit more (and I apologise for now replying to myself twice), there's a bit of a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE problem here. Individual scientific studies are very close to the epistemological coal face: a Wikipedia article, particularly a high-level one that might (or does) encapsulate several sub-articles, should be a few steps back. If the information only exists in primary studies/experiments but hasn't made its way into books or review articles yet, and those studies haven't yet been cited by others, are we really summarising the established scholarship? This isn't to say that we should never cite a recent study or experiment, but to raise a query as to the degree to which we're doing it here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most scientific articles on animals are observations not experiments. The DNA studies are observations. You can check the that these articles are cited multiple times. Hailer and colleagues (2012) is cited 280 times for example. Papers talk about previous studies all the time. I thought that using "primary sources" is more of a problem for history because citing historical documents requires interpretation and thus would be OR. This is different from citing the conclusions of scientific researchers. Paleontology articles rely heavily on peer-reviewed papers. You can't expect them to cite only books and review articles. If I just cited books, I would be in gross violation of 1c: a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Hog Farm, need you to weigh in. LittleJerry (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical articles only and so is not, IMO, relevant here. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fair points. Given that the replication issue isn't relevant here, I don't think there's a real problem with the current citations. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lindqvist and colleagues (2010) estimated that the polar bear lineage split from other brown bears around 150,000 years ago.: definitely parenthetical: if the date is felt important, could change to "In 2010, the biologist Charlotte Lindqvist and her colleagues...". Again, I think this is cited to a primary source. There's a few similar cases in the same section.
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source question is open, but I don't think the parentheses one is? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this too. In the first bulletin. LittleJerry (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah; there's a few still in the article, I'm afraid. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've referenced studies this way before in other FAs and "In 2010, the biologist Charlotte Lindqvist and her colleagues" just seems unnecessary. LittleJerry (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthetical referencing seems to me to be a clear-cut break with our style guidelines, which isn't compatible with FA criterion 2: I'm always sympathetic to a WP:IAR argument if there's a situation-specific reason to suspend that part of the criteria, but I'm not sure that "it's got through the net before" is really one of those. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: ? You've reviewed and readed my nominations before.. I honestly don't think this violates wiki rules. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lindqvist needs introducing, and UC's suggestion seems the obvious way of doing this. No doubt there are other ways. If I were reviewing I would also be unhappy with the current phrasing. I do not believe that there is a primary source issue, but have an open mind if someone wishes to persuade me differently. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • particularly high compared to most other mammals: it's less of a rule than people think, but many readers will prefer compared with when not talking about numbers.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • forward scatter UV: suggest spelling out ultraviolet. Is there a way to rephrase to avoid the double-bluelink?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can hear best at frequencies of 11.2–22.5 kHz: can we give the readers some idea of what that means; what sort of sounds are these?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The polar bear's liver accumulates high concentrations of vitamin A from their prey, making it toxic: little ambiguity in practice, but grammatically it ought to refer to the prey. Suggest "The polar bear's liver is toxic from the accumulation of..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their range includes Greenland, Canada, the US state of Alaska, Russia and the Svalbard Archipelago of Norway: why "the US state"? It makes the sentence more clunky and we haven't said "the Danish autonomous territory of Greenland".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Bay and Newfoundland/Labrador: the slash is a bit unconventional: suggest "James Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may independently travel an average of 142,332 km2: that's an area; you can travel a number of km, or over an area of so many km2, but not this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One study found they can swim an average of 154.2 km (95.8 mi) with an average duration of 3.4 days: slightly wonky phrasing ("I ran three miles with a duration of half an hour"?): suggest something like "they can swim for an average of 3.4 days at a time, and travel an average of..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adult males require less shelter for sleeping as they are less at risk from other bears.: is it worth spelling out why the others are at risk from other bears?
I would think that would be obvious, males are bigger than females and adult male are of great size and less likely to be messed with. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This links to another point, but (for example) messed with and eaten? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say specifically. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • other female-offspring units: I think this is a unit of a female and an offspring, in which case it should be an endash rather than a hyphen (MOS:ENBETWEEN). The same goes for blue-violet further up if we mean colours between blue and violet.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In their southern range, especially near Hudson Bay and James Bay, polar bears endure all summer without sea ice to hunt from. Hence they must subsist more on terrestrial foods: consider joining these two sentences; the second sits a little awkwardly on its own.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtship can be somewhat intense: what exactly does this mean? I don't have much of a frame of reference for bear romance.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polar bears are especially susceptible to Trichinella, a parasitic roundworm they contract through cannibalism: we didn't mention cannibalism in the diet section; is this a normal part of bears' diet?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text to images and checking that captions are correct per MOS:CAPFRAG.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The species has been labeled as 'threatened': we're inconsistent on handling things like this, but MOS:WORDSASWORDS would suggest italics are best.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest spelling out what CITES is and means.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Japanese writing: writing is odd here as a noun: history book?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • brown and black-coloured bears: assuming both brown and black are strictly colours here, should be brown- and black-coloured bears
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 13th century anonymous Norwegian text: hyphenate 13th-century as a compound modifier.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest telling the reader roughly where Zhokhov Island is.
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In more modern times, Hollywood actors would pose on bearskin rugs: can we be more specific on the time frame? Hollywood has been around as a centre for film since 1911; Monroe didn't start acting for another 35 years.
Clarified LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of people who could do with an introduction in the first paragraph of "Captivity": in particular, we should clarify which James I we're talking about (consider "James VI and I", as he's not James I in Scotland) per MOS:NOFORCELINK.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many zoos in Europe and North America have stopped keeping polar bears due to the costs of their exhibits: what makes these exhibits so expensive?
The source doesn't make it very clear, their design is already discussed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:BIRTHDATE advises against giving people's lifespan, except at the start of an article where they're the subject. Admittedly, it doesn't give specific guidance on polar bears, but I'd put the ranges into prose if they're felt important.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give a rough date range for the Dorset culture, The Grimsey Man and the Bear and The Tale of Auðun of the West Fjords.
Give one. No dates are given for the other two. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow; we know that the Dorset Culture existed from 500 BCE to between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, and I think it's germane to readers to know that we're talking about something that's very much a historical rather than a contemporary object. I didn't get much on a quick Google for the Grimsey man, unfortunately; appreciate that folklore can be a very tricky one to date even approximately. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as necessary, especially such that's such a wide time period. No date is give for the art specifically. LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on this one, but it's not a make-or-break issue for FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is considered to be a powerful symbol for the dangers of climate change and has been used to raise awareness: I think you have to raise awarness of something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading again, this sentence feels a little half-done: do we mean that U. maritimus tyrannus was a large subspecies of the brown bear, or that the example(s) we have are U. arctos pure and simple? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source just says it may be a brown bear. LittleJerry (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but we need to be clear, accurate and as good as a professional encyclopaedia: if we've got one source and it doesn't allow us to do that, we need to find some more. This book (p190) gives some useful context: tyrannus is "known" only from a single bone (an ulna), and the evidence for it belonging to a new species of polar bear is that it's extremely big. However, it might have come from an extremely large but otherwise normal brown bear, meaning that the species never existed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 00:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "missing link" at the moment is to let readers know that we've only "identified" a single putative animal: if they're imagining a species with multiple members, the sentence is a little confusing. It also seems to be fairly undisputed in post-2000ish HRQS that the ulna was from a brown bear and that tyrannus did not exist (e.g. here p36, which also gives it as a grizzly). Suggest something like:
    "One possible fossil subspecies, Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was posited in 1964 by Björn Kurtén (paper here for citation). Kurtén reconstructed the subspecies from a single fragment of an ulna, approximately 20% larger than expected for a polar bear.(cite: Kurten 1964: p10) However, re-evaluation in the 21st century has indicated that the fragment likely comes from a large brown or grizzly bear."
    As this is still the main article for ursus maritimus tyrannus, I think we're justified in giving it three sentences: I can see an argument for omitting Kurtén's name if brevity is a concern, but most of those details seem to be found in most sources discussing tyrannus, so there's probably a stronger WP:DUEWEIGHT argument for giving the story this much space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're still behind the scholarship with that 2008 article: Harington cites a personal comment from the director of the NHM that it's likely to be a brown bear, and subsequent sources that show more than a passing familiarity with the question are pretty unequivocal that it was (here and here, for instance: see also this very sceptical reception of Kurten from 1999). In other words, I think our article leaves the question more open than it is: suggest citing one or more of these sources and amending to something a bit more decisive. I suggested one formulation in the blockquote above, but am not particularly wedded to that phrasing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Add extra source. LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This bit still needs some attention, I'm afraid. Something's gone wrong in the writing or editing. We also need to sort out the final sentence (currently "However, it is currently considered to be a large individual brown bear"), which no longer makes sense in context: we need to be clear that the current understanding is that the ulna itself came from a brown bear. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed it to your proposed wording. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A real polar bear hunt was filmed for the 1932 documentary Igloo. In the film The Big Show (1961), two people are killed by a circus polar bear. The scenes were shot using animal trainers instead of the actors. The 1974 film The White Dawn features a polar bear being speared but it was simulated and the trained bear was unharmed. Dutch author Hans de Beer created a heroic polar bear named Lars. In the His Dark Materials fantasy novels, armour-clad polar bears perform ritualized combat bouts. In the The Jack Benny Program, Benny has a pet polar bear named Carmichael.
Part of the issue is that it reads somewhat as a grab-bag: what makes these examples interesting, useful, connected or illuminating? Are we simply mentioning every polar bear we (or our source) can find in popular culture? I'd suggest expanding out the meaning of real for Igloo (real as in they followed Inuit or similar people on an unstaged hunt, or that the actors actually shot bears?). The White Dawn sentence needs another look: perhaps something like "features a scene where a polar bear in speared; this was created by simulating the stabbing with a trained bear, who was unharmed". Similarly with Hans de Beer: I think he wrote about a polar bear rather than creating one. It also seems a little odd to give his name but not Philip Pullman's, and indeed it's usual to give the author's when first referring to a book in this article and beyond. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are just examples from different mediums, film, books and radio. His Dark Materials polar bears are particularly well known. Am I not suppose to mention any in modern culture? I made some changes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It helps if we can give some coherency: things that can help that include guiding the reader through media (so "literary depictions include...") and making it clear that the examples we have picked are particularly special (are they firsts, best-known, award-winning, described as something interesting by critics...?). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
changed again. LittleJerry (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist has made a policy backed point. You have resisted change on the basis of personal preference. (I am aware that I am simplifying in both cases.) Feel free to decline to change and see if UC thinks that it is a point they wish to oppose over. If they do (actually, even if they don't) the closing FAC coordinator will take it into account with all other reviewer comments in reaching a decision. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
removed. Why wasn't there demand for articles on movies to do this? LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the second or third time we've responded to a question-mark over how a piece of content is presented by removing that information altogether. Neither of those details is particularly mission-critical, but I can't see any real argument that an article without the amount is a better article than one with the amount inflated. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist? LittleJerry (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, I'd really appreciate it we would wrap this up soon or if you'd at least give me a timeline. Are there any major issues left? You've given a much-appreciated thorough review, but I can't keep working on tiny details like what to call An Inconvenient Truth. Not unless I know there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very much my fault: it's an FAC, not a PR, but I'd always prefer to help get an article up to FA standards rather than state that it doesn't meet them and clear off. It isn't quite there yet: there are still some small mistakes of English and MoS which mean that c1a and c2 are not yet satisfied. Given that we've made quite a lot of changes in some areas without changing the sourcing, I'd like to take a look at some of those sources before voting to make sure that we're still OK for WP:TSI. I'm happy to stop short and cast a vote on the article as it stands, if you'd like, but I wouldn't be able to vote support for it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Keep going. LittleJerry (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    UndercoverClassicist, how about waiting for FunkMonk to finish his review? With two finished reviews, the coordinators will give you more time to work on yours. LittleJerry (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a bit on the slow side these days, so would probably drag it out even more to wait for me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist, ready to continue. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist will you finish your review? LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it another look when I get the chance; other things have now come up, unfortunately. Happy to ping you when I do. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I haven't had time to carry out the checks, but I don't think I'm going to in the near future, and I have no specific concerns that should hold up the FAC process. Nice work on the article and in polishing it up over this nomination. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a455bcd9

edit

Hi, just a few comments:

Waiting for the new map at Map Request. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Polar bear subpopulation map.svg: a legend is missing for the colors and the meaning of the letters. Letters used are different from the text that says: Polar bears have been divided into 19 subpopulations labeled... For instance WHB is not listed in the article but it's on the map.
Isochrone, could you please add a legend. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry I'm away right now but I might be able to do it tomorrow afternoon, just ping me if I forget – Isochrone (T) 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LittleJerry could you please specify if you solely want a legend or some of the changes above? I could add an in map legend, but perhaps one in the caption using {{legend}} would be more appropriate: what do you prefer? – Isochrone (T) 12:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the legend is only part of the problem. The bigger issue is the 16 vs 19 subpopulations and the different names. {{Legend}} is probably more appropriate and easier to update. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isochrone, I think it would be better to remove the colors and add in the Kane Basin and Norwegian Bay (NB) subpopulations. LittleJerry (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources mentioned on the map (on Commons) show 19 subpopulations, including Queen Elizabeth Islands* (QE) (this one and this one). If we choose not to display QE on this map, we should add in the description on Commons: Map showing subpopulation of Polar Bears in the Arctic according to the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). Note: Queen Elizabeth Islands is not considered by the PBSG to be one of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations inhabiting the circumpolar Arctic.
Still what I don't understand: PBSG say there are 19 subpopulations but then only list 18 of them. Did I miss something? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That confused me too, so I changed the wording. LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isochrone? LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LittleJerry apologies I've been slightly busy, but I've done it now. Any other specific things you want addressed? The original map also seems to have included the Queen Elizabeth Islands and I missed that-- I've corrected it now. – Isochrone (T) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isochrone, you can remove QE Islands since its disputed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a455bcd9, do you approve of the images now? LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We still have "Polar bears have been divided into at least 18 subpopulations" but "Map of 19 polar bear subpopulations." on the map. We could at least write Bears in and around the Queen Elizabeth Islands (QE) have been proposed as a subpopulation but this is not universally accepted.
File:Polar Bear Habitat.png is still hard to read but there's probably nothing we can do.
Otherwise everything looks good to me! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Added sentence. LittleJerry (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a455bcd9 did you check the licenses for the images? LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LittleJerry, I'm not an expert of licenses. I've just checked all images. I could easily find a libre source for all of them with the exception of:
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two were most likely taken by User:Mbz1 (based on deletion requests for photos from the same source, such as Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Total lunar eclipse and milky way.jpg). Conclusion: ✓ Pass a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, that's how they're presented in the sources, by binomials, and second, it is important for context, to see which belong to the same or distinct genera. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The right side of the article is pretty much a continuous wall of images, which is a bit uneasy on the eyes. Suggest staggering a bit, pruning, or using some multiple images templates or galleries.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Model of a swimming polar bear from the Dorset culture, northern Canada" Is "model" really the right word here?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the term "Natural history" is way too broad to be used for a section about behaviour and ecology.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sow near Kaktovik" huh, never knew they were called that...
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You present the first person you mention by nationality and occupation, but nothing by the time you reach Carl Linnaeus and others, should be consistent throughout.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his 1758 edition of his work" I'd swap the first "his" with "the" to avoid repetition.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some have placed the polar bear in its own genus" Might as well name "them", or at least the author of the name.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • First you say "it is interfertile with the brown bear" then "Modern hybrids are relatively rare in the wild", which seems a contradiction. If you mean that hybrids between the two are infertile, this should be specified.
Interfertile not infertile. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, hard to see the extra letters when reading through hehe. But I think this could be expanded with a link to hybrid already then. Something like, "is is interfertible with the brown bear (able to produce hybrid offspring)" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genetic similarities between polar bears and some brown bears were found to be the result of interbreeding" and "Later studies have clarified that gene flow went from polar to brown bears rather than the reverse": this also seems to contradict the above.
It doesn't. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However these are not widely supported" Are they supported by anyone at all? If not, even "not widely" is an overstatement.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the polar bear is officially considered to be monotypic" What does "officially" mean here? Taxonomy is always subjective. There can be a consensus, but that's about it.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was posited in 1964 by Björn Kurtén Kurtén reconstructed the" looks like a new sentence is needed after first Kurtén.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reconstructed the subspecies from a single fragment of an ulna, approximately 20 percent larger than expected for a polar bear." I'd say "as" instead of the comma, looks like two different statements now, though it seems they should be connected.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in, but I think that's a misreading: it's the ulna itself that was 20% larger than expected, not the reconstructed bear. If we want to connect the two clauses, suggest "which was" in place of "and". UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bear's thicker coat" Since the preceding sentence mentions multiple species, specify "polar".
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "finding that some brown bear populations were more closely related to polar bears than other brown bears" Than other brown bears or than to other brown bears?
fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This specimen, when mounted, stood 3.39 m (11 ft 1 in) tall on its hind legs." What is their average standing height? If that isn't given, this measurement doesn't mean much.
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But can we get an average standing height still? FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sources don't say. LittleJerry (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polar and brown bear skulls seem to be quite different[5], which is hard to appreciate when you describe the polar bear's features in isolation. Could some skeletal comparison be included? Especially since you include as much as two skeletal images in the section.
Can't find a comparasion. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found this but its too vertically long and the shelf is too distracting. LittleJerry (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant text. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It already compares them. I have also added another adjective for the skull. LittleJerry (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Males have long hairs on their forelegs, which is thought to attract females." This seems odd, especially since no explanation is given. The reader would expect this kind of information to be either elaborated upon or moved to the section about reproduction.
changed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect info on speed, movement, and other functional biology, to be in the section on behavior, not under physical description.
Seems this was fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Forgot to mark it. LittleJerry (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have curved snout profile" Seems this could need "a" before "curved".
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The polar bear's liver is toxic to consume, due to the accumulation of vitamin A from their prey.[59]" This looks like it belongs under "exploitation", as it has little bearing on the animal itself.
moved. LittleJerry (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2022 study has suggested that the bears in northeast and southeast Greenland should be considered different subpopulations" So what line of study are these categories based on?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bears in and around the Queen Elizabeth Islands have been proposed as a subpopulation but this is not universally accepted." Then what do they belong to?
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archipelagos could be linked.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One study found they can swim for an average of 3.4 days at a time" What does this mean, swimming for three days straight?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a considerable chunk of text on how they rest and sleep, perhaps show a picture of this?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk can you please sign each sentence with four ~ so I can reply to each individually? LittleJerry (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On each point? Usually this is not practiced, what keeps you from replying now? FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its easier. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've tried with having space between each point, may be even easier, without breaking conventions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I forgot it, old habits die hard, but tried with the below haha. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as hoofed mammals" What is there other than reindeer and muskoxes? Why not just list them?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trying to kill walruses using rocks and pieces of ice" How?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "often leave a carcass to an approaching adult male" Why, to distract it?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The loss of sea ice has lead to" Led?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eskimo hunter with polar bear" I was under the impression that the term "eskimo" is discouraged today? The source indicates it's in Alaska anyway.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terms and names could be linked in image captions, such as hybrid, bearded seal, Svalbard, Detroit Zoo, ivory carving, and coat of arms of Greenland.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and recycle bodily waste". How is this done, internally in the body, or after excretion?
clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "t it can bred with the brown bear." Breed?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have multiple photos of rather sizeable juveniles, a bit of a shame that there are none of the smaller ones that you'd normally associate with cubs?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering it is interfertile with brown bears, has it ever been considered a subspecies itself?
Not since Phipps atleast. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only one population would likely survive extinction in 50 years" Survive extinction seems like redundancy, why not just "survive in 50 years"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polar bears are one of the few marine mammals that can reproduce well in captivity" Doesn't this belong in the captivity section?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "starting all the way back in" Rather informal and somewhat hyperbolic wording, "already in" would be enough.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more Norwegians were harvesting the bears" Sounds a bit odd, are we talking about the number of Norwegians or of bears? Perhaps "more bears were harvested in Norway"?
The number of Norwegians harvesting the bears on Svalbard. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Climate change has increased conflicts between the two species." This also sounds odd, as if it was written by observing aliens. Why not just "between bears and humans"?
I don't see the problem. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "swarmed a town in Novaya Zemlya" Since the place isn't linked, could state where it is.
It is linked above in the previous section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is generally not more aggressive" Just say "less" to be concise.
no, those are two different things. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Performing polar bear at the 1973 Nationaal Songfestival" Could state country.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the WP:Engvar? I see both "archeological" and "behaviour", could be double checked throughout
Canadian English. Changed spelling on one. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He resides underneath the sea floor in an underworld of the dead and had power over sea creatures." Why does it start in present tense but end in past tense, which the following sentence is also in?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Quebec?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links seem pretty random, with some links not working.
Trimmed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term pagophilic should be mentioned outside the intro too.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck

edit

Making a spotcheck and source review from this version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1: OK, might want to give a pagenumber though.
  • 42: Easier to verify with a pagenumber.
  • 46: Can't access this source.
  • 49: Can't access this source.
  • 52: OK.
  • 58: OK, but may want to specify that it was about 13 nautical miles.
  • 70: Can't access this source.
  • 86: Can't access this source.
  • 96: Can't access this page.
  • 109: OK.
  • 114: Can't access this page.
  • 117: Can't access this source.
  • 123: Can't access this page.
  • 134: Can't access this page.
  • 135: Can't access this page.
  • 137: Can't access this page.
  • 153: OK.
  • 156: Can't access this source.
  • 159: Can't access this source.
  • 182: Can't access this source.

Some citations seem to have links piped under the title of the cited source, others don't. May want to standardize that. Is #173 the sole example of its kind? On which basis was #174 selected for inclusion? Otherwise, it seems like source formatting is consistent and the sources seem reliable for the task. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

173 and 174 are news articles reporting on events. Added pages for cite one. Removed urls for journal articles have DOIs. LittleJerry (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure there are so many incidents of polar bear attacks that it doesn't seem appropriate to me to just cherry-pick one out. Is there something special about these included in the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its notable because there were so many bears that entered the area that the local government declared a state of emergency. It even has its own wiki article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus all good now? LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, OK, on condition that the incident be wikilinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SilverTiger

edit

This is a massive article so it may take me a while to go through all of it. But I am impressed by and admire your willingness to bring some of the most well-known animals through GAN and FAC.

  • First off, the lede: It is mostly good, but I am iffy about this sentence "Other food includes walruses, beluga whales and some terrestrial foods." with how it repeats the word food at the beginning and end. Terrestrial animals? Terrestrial plants and animals?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the Inuit words for polar bear given in the Etymology section, but not the words in any of the other cultures that surely would have been familiar with the species (Scandinavian and other far northern Eurasian cultures, for example)? And why is nanook linked here when the link leads to an article that isn't exactly about the same thing as its use here?
Added Norse names and removed think. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That still skips a number of other circumpolar peoples, but those two are the most well-known groups. So acceptable, if not ideal. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular. a 2011 study concluded that living polar bear populations derived their maternal lines from now extinct Irish brown bears. I think there's a stray period in there...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compared with the brown bear, this species has a more slender build, with a narrower, flatter and smaller skull,... "more slender" -> "slenderer", which also matches the narrower/flatter/smaller pattern.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely outside of the scope here, but why such a variable number of premolars? I don't know if that's normal for bears but for cats, the dental formula is usually fixed.
Not discussed in sources. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say why they turn yellowish, but not why they turn greyish or brownish. Is there a reason besides the bears getting dirty?
Same. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same answer as the last bulletin. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less snow could reduce lead to less insulation and more rain could cause more cave-ins. I feel like I'm missing something in the first half of that.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now. I'll try and get to the last section tomorrow. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This last section, without a doubt, is probably the trickiest in terms of what should be mentioned or not. I.e. why is the the aside about Horatio Nelson important?
I figured since he is an important figure and the incedent has been the subject of a painting. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Netslik, please.
Its mentioned and linked in the Naming section. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Netslik seems to be a misspelling of Netsilik. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be due to the bears being more desperate for food and thus more likely to seek out human settlements. I suggest changing to "due to the bears getting desperate for food and thus more likely to..." And are they seeking out settlements or just venturing closer?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the other two bear species, polar bears are more likely to target no more than two people at once. "polar bears are unlikely to target more than two people at once."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have a reputation? It isn't mentioned before you correct it.
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am mildly disappointed that bjarndýrakóngur does not have an article, it sounds interesting.
  • For the modern portrayals, what qualifies these selections as more noteworthy/representative than other modern depictions? I'm not necessarily asking for changes, just some explanation- here, if not in the article- of why these and not others.
I am citing two books on the animal in culture rather than cherry-pickings sources that are ultimately not about them. Even then, I have to select some. The examples I'm giving represent different mediums: paintings, books, films and radio. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And there ends the main part of my review. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With most everything I brought up answered, I am pleased to Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by mujinga

edit
  • I have just a few prose comments:
  • Lead says: "specialized for preying on seals, particularly ringed seals and bearded seals" and body says "The most commonly taken species is the ringed seal, but they also prey on bearded seals and harp seals", which seems slightly different
They don't contradict. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrases may not contradict but they are saying different things, I'd suggest saying in the lead either "specialized for preying on seals, particularly ringed seals" (which seems most appropriate) or "specialized for preying on seals, particularly ringed seals and also bearded seals and harp seals" Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exeter Exchange"suggst "Exeter Exchange in London" since at first I thought it was in Exeter
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tierpark Hagenbeck Zoo" suggest "Tierpark Hagenbeck Zoo in Hamburg"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hellabrunn Zoo " suggest "Hellabrunn Zoo in Munich"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this needs to be in the article, but (for my own interest at least) is there an estimate of how many polar bears are out there in the wild?
It already says in the Conservation section. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks I misread that - worth adding the total to lead? Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonus comment - for the reference The Guinness Book of Animal Records, you give a publisher location (Enfield, Middlesex) and you don't for other books, so I suggest to remove the location in this case
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mujinga, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1.5 queries still open! Mujinga (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga? LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry, @Gog the Mild support on prose Mujinga (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "Mothers give birth to cubs in a maternity den during the winter". I would take this to say that there are several mothers in each den, which I think is incorrect.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more closely related to polar bears than to other brown bears, particularly the ABC Islands bears". A few words of explanation about ABC bears would be helpful as well as the link.
Whats there to explain about them? LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the evolution section confusing. You list different studies with different views without making clear which are now regarded as most authoritative. If later studies are considered more reliable than earlier ones then you should spell this out.
I did. "More extensive genetic studies have found that the two species are in fact separate sister lineages". LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More extensive genetic studies have found that the two species are in fact separate sister lineages." This implies that brown and polar bears are both descended from an unnamed ancestor species. Then you say "Studies in 2011 and 2012 concluded that the genetics of brown bears passed into polar bears.[21][24] In particular, a 2011 study concluded that living polar bear populations derived their maternal lines from now extinct Irish brown bears." This implies that polar bears are not a sister lineage but a a brown bear offshoot. Also does the reference to maternal lineage mean that the paternal lineage was different or that the study only looked at mDNA? Then you say that later studies clarified that the gene flow was from polar to brown bears, but you have just said that it was the other way round. If so, it was not clarifying but contradicting.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transparent guard hairs forward scatter ultraviolet light between the underfur and the skin, leading to a cycle of absorption and re-emission." What is the significance of this? Does it benefit the bear in some way?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They may cover an average of 142,332 km2 (54,955 sq mi) per year, while drifting ice allows them to move even further at 178,040 km2 (68,740 sq mi) per year." This is False precision, giving a misleadingly exact figure for a number which can only be approximately estimated.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polar bears have wide home ranges. They may cover an estimated average of 142,332 km2 (54,955 sq mi) per year, while drifting ice allows them to move even further". The source says "the annual geographic range (142,332 km2, range: 3528-381,947 km2). This raises two points 1. Referring to home ranges as the area they cover is misleading both because they may never go into some areas in their home range, and, as you say, the area they cover is even larger. 2. The average you give is in the source, but if I have read it correctly, there is a variation between 3528 and 381,947, and the average tells us next to nothing useful, as well as being false precision. Maybe "Polar bears have widely varying home ranges, some only 3500 km2, while others are as large as 380,000. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though they may be less likely to if they have not eaten in a long time". "may be" seems an unnecessary double qualification. If the behaviour has been observed, then they are less likely.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bear's long lifespan and ability to consistently produce young each year". You say above that cubs are weaned at 2 to 2 and a half years old and latating females cannot conceive. This means that a female cannot produce young each year.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Norsemen in Greenland traded polar bear furs in the Middle Ages.[165] In Russia, Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land were important commercial centres for polar bear products, the former already used in 1556." This is confusing. You refer to Norsemen, who were Scandinavians who spoke Old Norse in the early Middle Ages, 5th to 10th centuries. Then, apparently referring to the same period you mention Russian centres, one as early as 1566, which is post-Middle Ages. Also, "the former" presumably refers to Franz Josef Land, but it could be more clearly expressed.
It doesn't say Russians were hunting them in the same period. They are talked about in two different sentences. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Separate sentences does not imply different periods. For clarity, I suggest "furs in the early Middle Ages. In early modern Russia". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the next century, more Norwegians were harvesting the bears" More than what?
Than Russians. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the 1870s to the 1970s, around 22,000 of the animals were hunted." Presumably, in total not annually, but this should be spelled out.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over 150,000 polar bears in total were either killed or captured in both Russia and Svalbard," What does "both" mean here? That a total of 300,000 were killed or captured?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though popularly thought of as the most dangerous bear, the polar bear is no more aggressive than other species and the ratio of predatory to non-predatory attacks is similar to the black bear." This seems an odd comment. "the ratio of predatory to non-predatory attacks" is an unclear concept for a layman. More importantly, it does not make sense as a measure of aggression, which would better be reflected by the number of attacks as a ratio of the number of bears of each species.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The polar bear was a particularly sought after species for exotic animal collectors". This is vague. You should specify over what period.
It goes into detail later. mention the different years and centuries. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are one of the few marine mammals that can reproduce well in captivity." I think "It is one..." would be grammatically correct.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polar bears have had prominent roles in Inuit culture and religion." "have had" implies that they do not any more. Is this correct?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The World Wide Fund for Nature has sold stuffed polar bears as part of its "Arctic Home" campaign." This is misleading. A "stuffed polar bear" would be a stuffed full sized skin of a real polar bear, but it links to Teddy bear, which is obviously quite different. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoySmith

edit

This is my first time commenting on a FA, so weight everything I say appropriately.

There is no policy that says photographs need RS. Some things are just easy to know and observe I've never had to deal with this in previous FAs. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evolution: The following cladogram is ... per MOS:ACCIM, avoid use of "following", since the image may not actually follow the text in all presentations.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristics, the "Skull" caption only makes sense in the context of being adjacent to the image captioned "Polar bear skeleton", so another MOS:ACCIM issue.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristics: The eyes of a polar bear are located close to the top of the head, I would drop the word "located".
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social life: Young males play-fighting (image caption) What WP:RS says these bears are male? This seems to be taken from the Commons image description, but that's not a WP:RS.
,People can tell the difference between a male and female when up-close. This is a featured video. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reproduction and development: Courting male approaching female (image caption). Same question as above. Somebody took a bunch of photos of two bears and uploaded them to commons. What WP:RS identifies these as a male and a female engaged in courtship?
The picture was uploaded as part of Russian Science Photo Competition 2023. It is actually part of a sequence of photos of these bears interacting Polar bear are normally solitary on the sea ice expect for courting bears. Its very easy to tell if two bears are courting. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general comment, please review all of the images to ensure that the captions are traceable to WP:RS. I do not consider commons image descriptions to be RS.

@FAC coordinators: ? Is this really a policy for photographs?

Ha! I was checking that my understanding of policy was correct as you wrote that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions makes no mention of citations or referencing being necessary, indeed "Not every image needs a caption". So many or most captions will not need to be traceable to WP:RS. The exceptions of course are those "likely to be challenged", in which case they will; reasonable editors may differ over which category any given caption falls into. Perhaps RoySmith could suggest which uncited captions they consider "likely to be challenged"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could have a different conversation about whether information presented in image captions should be held to the same standard as information presented in the main text, but if that's not a FACR, I defer to those more knowledgeable. RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One caption is cited already. I think the two others which I would feel a little happier to see cited are:
  • "The loss of sea ice has led to more open water and more pressure on the bears to swim great distances."
  • "Map from the U.S. Geological Survey shows projected changes in polar bear habitat from 2001 to 2010 and 2041 to 2050." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mark Arsten: On a non-content note, I see the article was indef semi-protected 10 years ago, apparently due to vandalism. I don't see any reason to keep it protected 10 years later, so I've removed that.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Polar_bear/archive1&oldid=1176480359"