Thanks for the ping. Odd that the old PR wasn't linked in the article's talk page, perhaps it wasn't closed properly. Have all issues raised at the FAC been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll review it once everything brought up at the FAC has been dealt with so I don't tread the same ground. Please carefully check every other issue brought up beside Jens', I see other points from other reviewers that are unresolved. FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The narwhal tusk has been a highly sought-after item in Europe for centuries. This stems from some medieval Europeans' belief of narwhal tusks being horns from the legendary unicorn. – Can you tell me where your sources state that the unicorn belief stems from the middle ages? The German Wikipedia states that it came to Europe from Asia during Antiquity. You even contradict this a few sentences later: The trade strengthened during the Middle Ages implies that the trade existed before the Middle Ages.
The German article is inadequately sourced and looks like OR to me. Also, Europeans got the unicorn idea from the Bible and older sources, not from Asians. The source doesn't state that the trade occurred earlier, so I'm just going with what the source gives me.
Around 1,000 AD, Vikings collected tusks washed ashore in beaches of Greenland and surrounding areas, and traded them. – One of your sources says that during the middle ages, the Vikings traded most horns with the Inuit. So this is at least misleading
In 1555, Olaus Magnus published a drawing of a fish-like creature with a horn on its forehead, correctly identifying it as a "Narwal". – This lacks context. Why is this drawing significant?
Explained
The "European" section reads a bit like a rather random assemblage of anecdotes but does not really provide the big picture. Did they believe the tusks were from a sea animal, or from a horse-like unicorn? When was this belief refuted? How does the belief about the powers of the tusks develop in later centuries, and when does it stop? No coverage on these important points.
Source [86] is an entire book about Narwhal (the only one I see), but is only cited once, for a single sentence? This makes me wonder if the available sources (particularly the secondary sources) are sufficiently taken into account.
I'll see what I can add.
Continuing with "taxonomy" now: Its name is derived from the Old Norse word nár, meaning "corpse", in reference to the animal's greyish, mottled pigmentation,[7] and its summertime habit of lying still at or near the surface of the sea (called "logging"). – Your source states "might be", which is an important difference.
Done
The scientific name, Monodon monoceros, is derived from Greek: "one-tooth one-horn".[7] – We usually provide the words from which the name is derived (you did hat for the Old Norse, but not here).
Fixed
and its summertime habit of – this phrase is directly copied from the source, making me worry about Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. This is an issue here since this phrase is quite distinct and creative.
Fixed
indicating that the remains belonged to a narluga; – you need to explain what a "narluga" is; it might be obvious to you but we should not let readers guess.
Fixed
suggesting that it hunted on the seabed, much as walruses do – Your source only states that walruses feed on the seabed, while isotope signatures are like those of walruses. But it does not claim that the hybrid hunted on the seabed; this is therefore a clear case of WP:Synth.
Fixed
Do you have that book I mentioned (if not, send me a Wikimail).
General advice: Let off some steam. Writing a FAC takes a lot of time and patience. You will have to get very familiar with the sources (reading, reading, reading), and might have to rephrase some parts of your text over and over again until it feels right to you. It needs in-depth research for additional sources to make sure you cover all relevant and interesting facts. You need to pay attention to details all the time. All of this takes a lot of time, really. It pays off; finally getting a FA is something you can be really proud of. Again, what I would suggest here is to take it more slowly. Instead of hasting to address all the comments at once, really try to get it right, and as best as you can. If you follow that, FAC can be a much more pleasant experience. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first issue with the "European" section is, in my opinion, the sourcing. You rely on the "Washington Post" quite a bit here. This can be a high-quality reliable source in some cases, but when it comes to science and history, scholarly sources are usually better. This is because those news articles are usually written by journalists, which are not experts on the topic. I refer to the issue that I already pointed out at the FAC – the statement when Vikings collected tusks washed ashore. This seems to be mere speculation; I doubt that there is actual evidence behind this statement. First, if it is speculation, we need to ask "why is it relevant for Wikipedia?". The answer could be that an expert of the field made this statement, but we don't even know who (maybe it was just the journalist speculating here; that would clearly not be relevant for Wikipedia). Second, we need author attribution here to make clear that it is an opinion/speculation, not established fact. Third, the scholarly sources, as far as I can see, do not even mention this. To sum up; scholarly sources are available, so better use them, and get rid of this Washington Post piece.
Pluskowski (2004) seems to be a very good scholarly source, where you can get much more information from (only cited once in the article). Reading this one tells me that the "European" section could be much expanded; the section does not seem to be comprehensive as required by the FA criteria.
Ivan the Terrible had a jewelry-covered narwhal tusk on his deathbed. – And the following sentences: These read like a collection of single facts without context and order. These are just examples, but you do not provide the "big picture", the general observations.
For example, what you need is, I think, a clear, structured discussion of the different uses of the tusks. Magical uses, religious uses, uses as raw material, I don't know, but the Pluskowski source seems to cover it well. Provide the general points first, then give the examples for each.
The tusks were also used to make cups that were thought to detect any poison that may have been slipped into the drink. – A very specific example. But it was not only cusps as this sentence implied; there was a general belief that the tusks protect against poison, which you do not directly state.
After being proven that narwhal tusks were not antidotes, the practice was subsequently abandoned.[92] – What practice, to be precise? The tusks continued to be traded, right? So for what reason?
he correctly identified it as a "Narwal" – this is inaccurate; the source does say he called it "Monocerote" or "Monocerotis", not "Narwal". Also, this sentence here comes out of the blue, without any connection to the rest of the paragraph. Maybe this kind of information is better placed in the "Taxonomy" section.
Hmm, not really I fear. You found excellent sources, but there is so much information in there that you didn't add. I suggest to read those sources carefully, and the "European" section should be much longer. But the stuff you added in the first paragraph is the opposite of what the sources you cite actually say. You need to be careful with representing the sources accurately; if information is not covered by sources, that can lead to quick opposes at FAC. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a bunch of unresolved issues on the previous FAC page that were brought up by very experienced reviewers.[1] I will continue when all are fully resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria replied to your queries about the image review, but you didn't reply.
Completed all except This one I'm not sure how I go about removing it.
The issue seems to be that it wasn't reviewed, you can just send it to WP:paleoart review if you want to put it back. And could you specify how you have dealt with the other image issues? I checked one image, this[2], and what was requested by the reviewer hasn't been done, which is to add a citation to support the size shown in the Commons description. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist raised issues about citation formatting consistency whic is unclear if has been resolved throughout all citations.
Done
Esculenta stated there are still more of the citation issues they pointed out, you should go through them all and be sure they're consistent.
Done
Sandbh pointed out that there could be better images. Have you checked Commons?[3]
Yes
Johnbod had concerns that the intro doesn't summarise the entire article fully. They appear to be correct, at a glance, nothing is said about its colouration, so look out for what else might be missing.
Okay, so that's all. I believe I included information on taxonomy, description, distribution, behavior and ecology, conservation, and human relationships to the lead section.
@FunkMonk: Since Jens has stopped commenting, I think I adequately answered his remarks and made a compelling case for my position. By the time this peer review is 20 years old, I would like to reopen it for FAC, therefore I ask you to begin reviewing. WolverineXI(talk to me)09:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need more patience if FAC is going to be any fun for you. Let ongoing peer reviews finish, otherwise there's no point in even taking it to FAC. FAC can take months, so this is nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Narwhal_size.svg){kind=link}