Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dusky dolphin/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2025 [1].

Dusky dolphin

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. This article has changed quite a bit during and after the last FAC and I've tidied up the prose and sourcing. I think it is more ready now. I have already requested a new range map/ LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)New[reply]

New map added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

After asking my advice on the quality of the prose, and my noting on your talk page that many of the same problems I talked about in the first FAC still existed, I was surprised to see this show up here with the problems still intact. Be that as it may, the need for a range map was discussed by several reviewers last time. Given that, I would think you would want to wait until that was taken care of before resubmitting. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even before I contacted you, I was working the choppy sentences and connecting them. I think if there are any left, they can be resolved quickly. I also don't think it is fair to have to wait for the new range map as it can take ages for someone to do it. I even had to repost my request, since it was archived before someone could do it! LittleJerry (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • A very, very long sentence: A 2019 study proposed that the dusky dolphin, together with the Pacific white-sided dolphin, hourglass dolphin, and Peale's dolphin, be moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias, while a 2025 phylogenomic study found that Sagmatias as defined by the 2019 study is also not monophyletic and instead suggested that the dusky and Pacific white-sided dolphin be classified under a new genus, Aethalodelphis. Needs to be split into 2 or 3 sentences.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of four animals is hard to read: A 2019 study proposed that the dusky dolphin, together with the Pacific white-sided dolphin, hourglass dolphin, and Peale's dolphin, be moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias.... That is listing four animals, and is hard for readers to keep it all in their heads. Better is something like A 2019 study proposed that four species (A,B,C,D) be moved into ...
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abbreviation "L.o." Three dusky dolphin subspecies have been classified: the African dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus obscurus, Gray, 1828), Fitzroy's dolphin (L. o. fitzroyi, Waterhouse, 1838), and the Peruvian/Chilean dusky dolphin (L. o. posidonia, Philippi, 1893). I understand what the abbrev l.o. is, but why is it used for latter three, but not the first? Is it the convention in biology that the species is spelled-out fully in first usage in a paragraph, and only then the abbreviation can be used?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Increase over time ... how long? In Patagonia, dusky and Commerson's dolphins have been attracting more and more viewers, and 90% of boat trips encountered dusky dolphins in 2001, up from 25% two years before. If you are going to say "more and more" you also need to answer "from when?". Maybe best to reword as something like "Number of dolphin-viewing trips has been increasing during the 21st century.." or "The number of annual dolphin-viewing trips doubled between 2010 and 2020" or something like that.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into two sentences: In Patagonia, dusky and Commerson's dolphins have been attracting more and more viewers, and 90% of boat trips encountered dusky dolphins in 2001, up from 25% two years before. Those are two entirely different statements: the 1st half tells the reader that tourists are interested in seeing them; the 2nd half says that either (a) the dolphins have become more common; or (b) [more likely] the boat drivers are getting better at finding the dolphins.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define term "Herd prey" ... and they herd prey less when near the farms. Many readers will not know what that means; either define it or link to a WP article on the notion.
The average person knows what "herd" means, like when you talk of herding sheep. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording is not ideal: The dusky dolphin is listed as Least Concern by the IUCN Red List because; "... Although information is sparse, several Dusky Dolphin populations are large, seemingly stable, and not subject to high levels of anthropogenic threats". First, that semicolon ; after word "because" should be a colon :. But even with the colon, it is not FA quality. The word "because" does not flow. Better is to (a) eliminate colon/semicolon; and (b) replace the quoted text "Although ... threats" with your own paraphrase of what the source says. The WP editor should do the work, so the reader does not have to.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambigious: ... the illegal small cetacean fisheries Does "small" modify "cetacean"? or "fisheries"?
I;m guessing the former: The threats facing Dusky Dolphins are most severe in western South America. The species was taken directly in the multi-species small cetacean fisheries of Peru and Chile in the 1980s, with the directed hunt for dolphins and porpoises expanding in Peru after the demise of the Anchoveta fishery in 1972
@LittleJerry: Okay, but I was posing the question to illustrate confusion that a typical reader may experience. I was suggesting that the wording could be improved to eliminate the ambiguity. Noleander (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific page numbers are best. Most of the sources are journal articles, and the source articles range in size from about 5 to 30 pages. Most citations in this WP article do not identify the specific page number. That is okay in some situations, esp if the source article is small. But top-quality citations will direct the user to a specific page. For example the Würsig (1980) source is 19 pages long, and is used for supporting five separate sentences in the WP article. Ideally you'd help the reader by telling the reader the specific page. Two ways to do that (a) rp template, and (b) sfn template. The article is already using the rp template in a few places, e.g. here: .... the animals.[57]:241 so I guess you can continue that pattern. When the citation is referring to a single page within the source article, I would suggest using the rp template for all citations that refer to a source article that is >= 10 pages long.
Not a good idea. We can't cite pages for some journal articles and not others. The policy is that you cite page numbers for books and not journal articles. I've always done this in past with no problems. We should atleast get more opinions on this. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry:Sounds sensible, but can you point me to a Manual of Style (MOS) guideline? I don't recall seeing it in writing before. Noleander (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As more opinions have been asked for: some style guides used to advise against giving specific page numbers for journals, but this is now generally considered outdated -- all major modern guides (I checked APA, Chicago and various UK university guides) that I can find advise giving page numbers (or paragraph/section numbers if they are used instead) with no exception for journals. In general, being precise in citation is important for WP:TSI and to demonstrate that WP:CLOP has been avoided, and the general rule is, when given a choice between being consistent and doing something that adds value, not to worry too much about being consistent. In particular, saying that you can't cite page numbers for any journals (or books, etc) because some of those sources don't use page numbers is, in my view, misguided. Where they don't exist (e.g. for ebooks), it's common to use the {{{loc}}} parameter to specify e.g. search "dolphin". UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all do respect, I would like to hear from people who have more experience with science and biology-based articles. This is not standard in these subjects as far as I know. LittleJerry (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander, so for cites like [11] which has 13 pages, I have to cite the exact page numbers that supports the text even though it also states it upfront in the abstract? In spite of their morphological similarities they are now considered an artificial grouping. Also WP:PAGENUM states that "Specify the page number or range of page numbers" but in regards to books and print articles. All the journal articles I cite are online or are online verisons. LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I did not make my recommendation very clearly. I was simply saying that when the article fact appears on a single page of the source, and the source is not small, then the citation should help the reader by identifying the page number. That's all, nothing more. Glancing at the cites in the dolphin article, I don't think page numbers need to be added to more than a handful of sources. You don't need to add page numbers if (a) the source is small (say, under 10 pages); or (b) the WP article fact is covered by the entire article. It is only on the rare situations where the source is large-ish and contains lots of other info. WP:PAGENUM says When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited. Books and print articles Specify the page number or range of page numbers. Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole. When you specify a page number, it is helpful to specify the version (date and edition for books) of the source because the layout, pagination, length, etc. can change between editions. If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number, the section title, or the specific entry. Which is about the same as I'm suggesting, except they say "lengthy" sources and I'm suggesting 10 pages. Your comment of "print" articles vs online articles is not in the spirit of FA, IMHO (tho, if you cannot get a copy of the article with the page numbers indicated, that is a similar problem with many books, which have no page numbers in some eBook editions. But consider WP:RX for locating a page-numbered copy... I've had to do that with eBooks & newspaper articles for my FA articles). The goal here is to provide an excellent experience for the reader. We should do everything we can to make the article excellent, inviting, and user-friendly. Noleander (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will get to then. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander, done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into 2 sentences The ability to make these leaps is apparently not inborn but learnt; calves are recorded to learn in the following order: noisy leaps, clean leaps, coordinated leaps, and acrobatic leaps.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar/wording needs improvement: calves are recorded to learn in the following order: ... Maybe Scientists have observed that calves learn jump styles in the following order: ...
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better wording ... they peak around only 50 dolphins... Suggest remove word "only" since that word may lead some readers may perceive some kind of judgement or conclusion that is not justified. In general, encyclopedic wording should avoid words like "only" "barely" "surprisingly" "hardly" "rarely" ... especially if the sources give specific numbers. Let the numbers do the talking. Of course, if the source makes a point of saying "only" or "rarely" then by all means include it.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dusky dolphin is a small and somewhat stocky species Small/stocky relative to what?
Compared to other dolphin species I presume. LittleJerry (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find this answer disturbing. You are stating a fact in WP:WIKIVOICE. If you don't know what it means, how can you evaluate the strength of the source's statement vis-a-vis whether it's just that one author's opinion or if it's widely accepted as true? If it's an opinion, you should attribute it as such, i.e. Jefferson et al have described the species as "small and somewhat stocky". If it's not an opinion, you should be able to defend your decision to incorporate it as a statement of fact. RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I answered it that way before rechecking the source which clarified that is a small, moderately robust species. I already changed the text to "The dusky dolphin is a small and somewhat stocky cetacean". LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: Dusky dolphins perform a number of aerial displays, which are classed into noisy, clean, acrobatic, and coordinated. Noisy leaps end in ... some readers (esp if English is not their 1st language) may not realize that when the sentence says "leaps" it is referring to the "aerial displays" mentioned earlier.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguity Dusky dolphins perform a number of aerial displays, .... The "number" could mean "several types" or "many leaps each day". Reading the rest of the sentence, I gather the intention is the former, buy why make the reader do the mental labor? Consider Dusky dolphins perform several kinds of aerial displays, ....
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguity: These leaps likely have a number of functions based on type. What is "likely"? (a) "have a number" [vs only one per type]; or (b) "... based on type" [vs functions are NOT based on type[]. Consider something like: It is not certain what purpose, if any, the leaps serve, but some researchers speculate that each type of leap serves a unique purpose. For example ....
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off Kaikōura, dusky dolphins have been found to contain scars and notches on their dorsal fins that are suggested to be caused by fighting over mates. Are these scars observed on males? females? or both?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links would be helpful here: ... Phyllobothrium delphini, Braunina cordiformis, and Pholeter gasterophilus... I gather those are obscure species of parasites? And WP does not yet have articles on these species? Certainly, some readers will want to learn about those parasites, and providing a link to the parent genus/family/order may be useful to the reader, true? It took me awhile to use google to search the species name, find a (non WP) web site on the species ( https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Phyllobothrium/classification/ ); read that web site to get the parent genus & order , and then go back to WP and find Phyllobothriidae (parent genus) and Tetraphyllidea (parent order). The links in WP should help users avoid that hassle. I looked in WP:LINK and found WP:SPECIFICLINK which advises:

    If there is no article about the most specific topic, do one of the following things: Consider creating the article yourself. If an article on the specific topic does not yet exist, create a redirect page to the article about a more general topic, as described in section § Redirects. For example, if no article yet exists on the song "Sad Statue" from the album Mezmerize, create a new article called Sad Statue that is a redirect to the article Mezmerize. If there is no article on a more general topic either, then create a red link, but first, read § Red links below. When neither a redirect nor a red link appears appropriate, consider linking to a more general article instead.

     That MOS seems to endorse linking to the genus/order article (or creating red-link stubs, but that is much worse) correct?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify   Nursery groups segregate from mating groups, as adult males will aggressively chase mothers, leaving calves dazed and vulnerable. Does that mean (a) nursery groups _do_ segregate, thus successfully avoiding the aggression? Or (b) they _try_ to segregate, and [often/sometimes] fail, thus experience aggression? Either way, suggest reword to give the reader a feeling for how successful the segregation efforts are.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify They arrive at the hunting site individually and form groups of up to five when in the layer; these decrease back to single individuals as the layer descends. I do not understand the meaning of the 2nd half of that sentence. I read the WP article on Deep scattering layer and still I'm a bit confused. Can you reword 2nd half to make it plainer? Consider adding a brief definition of Deep scattering layer here in this Dusky dolphin article.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander. Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see that many dolphin articles in this encyclopedia have an illustration in their infobox that illustrates the size of the dolphin relative to a human being. Many of those articles are not FA status. Makes sense that an FA quality article should also have such a diagram. There's a group of volunteers at WP:SVG help that can create such diagrams, it should only take one of them about five or ten minutes to create it by copying one of the other existing diagrams and modifying it. Or, if there's another dolphin of the exact same size as the dusky dolphin, you can simply reuse that illustration immediately.Noleander (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Nikkimaria had me delete the diagram during the last FAC because it was not supported by any data and they probably should be removed from those other articles too for the same reason. LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay. That makes sense. I retract my suggestion. (Although it seems like the source for the length of the adult dolphin (that is already used in the article for the length) would suffice, provided the diagram caption says "human shown is 1.8 meters tall" or something like that.) Noleander (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The range is described as "discontinuous". A more precise word word is "non-contiguous". Is discontinuous standard in biology?
It doesn't matter either way. LittleJerry (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose, MOS, and citation formatting. The paragraph transitions are a bit abrupt, but that seems to be typical for animal articles, where it is reciting a series of facts (vs, say, a biographical article, or article on a historical event, which tells a story, and can flow from paragraph to paragraph). I have not examined image copyrights or verified any sources. Also, I am not a biologist, and cannot comment on whether this article conforms to FA expectations for biology/animal articles. Noleander (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the premise that animal articles are exempt from the WP:FACR 1a requirement that the "prose is engaging and of a professional standard". RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They never said that. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: We should work together to see if we can get consensus on prose quality. If there are areas that need work, we should give specific suggestions for improvement.
I looked above in this nomination, above, to find some examples of prose that needs improvement, and found an example on nominator's talk page: the first two sentences of the Distribution section were originally (in FA1): Dusky dolphins are found throughout New Zealand waters. They are most common on the eastern coasts, between East Cape on the North Island and Timaru/Oamaru on the South Island. The suggested improvement was to improve the flow between those two sentences, e.g. by merging them. The nominator did improve that section: as of today, that section has a new introductory paragraph, and also those two sentences were merged, as was recommended. It looks like a couple hundred edits have been made to the article since FA1 was failed around 10 Feb 2025.
Can you give a couple more specific, actionable examples of prose that is not FA quality? Then the nominator (and others that want to assist) can jump in and make it better. Noleander (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander, you are the editor who commented "The paragraph transitions are a bit abrupt". It would be helpful if you were to give specific examples. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were talking about the difference between writing history and about animals. "it is reciting a series of facts (vs, say, a biographical article, or article on a historical event, which tells a story, and can flow from paragraph to paragraph)." LittleJerry (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Yes, I said the transitions between paragraphs were "a bit abrupt". I did so in the context of posting "Support" on prose: I was contrasting this biology article with history articles I generally work on, which have narrative stories. It is easy to flow between paragraphs in history articles. I was remarking that biology articles seem - by their very nature - to be more bullet-oriented, and harder to flow. I posted about 15 or 20 suggested improvements to the prose, and the nominator implemented all/most of them. After the nominator implemented the changes, the remaining abruptness in this article was minimal, and met FA standards, in my assessment. I concluded by posting "Support", and stating that I'm not too familiar with FA standards for biology articles, and other editors may have other opinions. If you are looking for editors who feel the prose still is not FA-quality, you should query user RoySmith or user UndercoverClassicist ... they are the ones that have indicated that more work is needed on the prose to meet FA quality. Noleander (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SilkPyjamas has also done a copyedit. LittleJerry (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 2A02:8071:184:4E80:3401:3253:EF47:5AB1 (talk) (IP may change)

[edit]
  • Image caption "Dusky dolphin drawings in Plate 5 of Mammalogy section in Mammalogy and Ornithology (1858)" fails to cite author - we have an article on John Cassin.
  • Image caption "Dolphins mating" is too generic - the information that these are supposedly dusky dolphins is somehow inexplicably contained in the alt text, but not the caption. It should be in the caption.
  • I approve of specific page names being given, but would prefer for this to happen in the references section, eliminating such typographic beauties as "[35]: 879 [31]: 569 [53]: 1563" from the main text. If more than one place within a publication needs to be variously referred to, a bibliography section can be used, cross-referenced by Harvard scheme from the references section. See Charles Darwin as an example of how this might be done.

2A02:8071:184:4E80:3401:3253:EF47:5AB1 (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the first two but I'm not changing the sourcing format. That is so unfair, especially since Noleander already approved of them. Using the rp template is perfectly legitimate. I already compromised on specifying pages numbers for some journal articles and changing the format will make it needlessly complicated. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I concur with Roy's judgement, above, that the prose quality does not meet the standards of polish, flow and quality that we expect at FA. It is tricky to be too specific or prescriptive here, but a few examples:

  • The dusky dolphin is a small and somewhat stocky cetacean. Specimens in New Zealand have been recorded at a length of 167–178 cm (5.48–5.84 ft) and a weight of 69–78 kg (152–172 lb) for females and a length of 165–175 cm (5.41–5.74 ft) and a weight of 70–85 kg (154–187 lb) for males. Peruvian dolphins may be larger, but this is based on small sample sizes.
What the fuck is the problem? am I supposed to merge them all together so they won't be "choppy"? LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dusky dolphins have a visible boundary between the forehead and the short, pointed beak. Both the dorsal fin and flippers are curved, the former being more pointed. The male's dorsal fin is broader and more curved.
What I'm supposed to merge them. They don't fit. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Peru, dusky dolphins are killed in large numbers (10,000–15,000 per year) and used as shark bait or for human consumption, which has led to a status of Vulnerable for the Peruvian subspecies.
Now your asking me to split? LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dusky dolphin watching is also popular in New Zealand, whose dolphin-watching industry started in the late 1980s as a side attraction to sperm whales.
Again, whats the matter? LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The effect of mussel farming on dusky dolphins has been studied in Admiralty Bay. Apparently, dolphins rarely enter farms, and when they do, they quickly swim through them.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this will be frustrating, because the problem here is a matter of "flow" and idiom, which means I can't give you specific rules or a clear path towards improvement. In my own writing, I find that this kind of issue usually arises when I've done a lot of editing and slightly lost sense of the overall thread, and it helps me to cut-paste each paragraph or so to another place, then re-write it in one go, thinking carefully about what I want to communicate to the reader and how the ideas flow together. This is good advice in this essay, but ultimately I acknowledge that this is a difficult review to fix when you've already done your best at the article, and unlikely to be one that ends in a satisfactory conclusion for the nominator. For that I am sorry. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is such bullshit. I've been working on the prose and even got a copyedit but the goalposts keep changing. Roy complained about "choppyness", so I merged sentences, but Noleander wanted me to split them and UC won't even explain whats wrong with the sentences highlighted. I'm tired of these drive-by comments. Review the damn review or don't bother. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move those sentences through [2], it gives reasonable suggestions how to improve most of them. Needless to say, be careful; for example, when the thing gives "a side attraction to whaling" you probably want it to change that to "whale watching". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did some. LittleJerry (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already used this and ChatGPT. They are purely about grammar, but I still get bullshit claims about "flow". LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the replies above, I don't see much hope of this being a pleasant or effective process, so I'm going to formally move to oppose. To summarise my point of view (and pace Tim below), I don't believe the article prose quality yet meets criterion 1a, that that the "prose is engaging and of a professional standard". This could be actioned by giving the article a thorough review, perhaps with the assistance of a detached and expert editor, to ensure that every sentence is idiomatic, every paragraph flows well, and the tone and style match that of a professional publication. I'm open to reviewing that vote if the article changes, but don't intend to offer prescriptive solutions to individual examples myself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect I'm the bottleneck at the moment, so have taken another look (partly due to the support of some very skilled and experienced reviewers on this page). I think the prose is better, though this sentence needs a look: Lagenorhynchus consists of the Greek lagenos ("bootle/flask) and rhynchus (beak/snout) while obscurus is Latin for "dark".: I suspect bottle was intended instead of "bootle", single quotes should be used for glosses, lang/transl templates for foreign languages, and rhynchus is not a Greek word (rhynchos is, however). However, it's pretty minor in the grand scheme, and the prose elsewhere is sound, so I've struck the oppose on the assumption that this will be fixed easily enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I apologize for my language. Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Mostly OK, but:

  • The capitalisation goes a little awry in places, with a mix of sentence case and title case
  • There are a few places where a little help could be given on more specific pages of page ranges. I know you're using the 'reference page' system, but Ref 7, for example, is cited to pages 1–191, which is too large for any sensible benefit
  • Ref 11 shows it is issue "(217–230)" and pages "217–230", which is obviously wrong
  • "though genetic evidence indicates that this grouping is not a natural (monophyletic) taxon.[8][9][10][11][12][13]": does this twelve-word clause really need six refs? It seems a little excessive and that many cites makes reading a little cumbersome.
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalisation is still not consistently applied, with a mix. What system are you going for - I can point out some more specifics by way of example. - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing sentence clause for journal articles. Books have title clause. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. I think this covers them all:

  • ISBNs should be consistently hyphenated
  • Ref 2: “"Appendices | CITES". cites.org”: the page title is just "Appendices” and the website is Cites
  • Ref 18: should be in title case
  • Ref 29: “Behaviour” should be lower case
  • Ref 42: Should be capitalised
  • Ref 52: Should be capitalised

All very fiddly and annoying, but consistency is key for this step.

Scope and reliability

To follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all good. Source review, now passed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking as the formatting has all been changed since the review. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back, please reconsider. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checking now. - SchroCat (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about a spotcheck? LittleJerry (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks are only required for first timers. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you get a spotcheck if six months passed since the last review? Gog the Mild? LittleJerry (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Spot checks are only required if a nominator has not previously successfully nominated an article at FAC. That said, any editor may carry out a spot check on any article. In addition the coordinators may at their discretion require a spot check for any nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

At the nominator's request I'm reviewing this article. I know nothing of the topic and my few comments are purely on the prose. From the spelling, I take this to be a BrE article, but if it isn't my comments below on "likely" and "due to" may not be relevant. I see from the remarks of earlier reviewers that some perceived a problem with the prose, but it seems pretty OK to me in the current version.

  • Lead
  • My only comment is that each paragraph starts with the words "The dusky dolphin", which is a touch repetitive. Perhaps the second could begin with "The species" or some such?
  • Taxonomy
  • "from American biologist Frederick W. True in 1889" – clunky false title which can be remedied with a definite article
  • Phylogeny
  • "though genetic evidence finds ..." – Does evidence find? "Evidence suggests" or "indicates" might be more usual.
  • Ecology and behaviour
  • "At Admiralty, foraging leads to larger aggregations" – there are nine mentions of this location in the text and in eight of them it is "Admiralty Bay" rather than just "Admiralty", as here. Looks a bit odd.
  • Reproduction and parenting
  • "nursery groups, which likely provide them more time to rest" – the current edition of Fowler and the excellent Guardian style guide both call this usage of "likely" an Americanism. The Guardian guide has this to say: In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as "they will likely win the game" sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
  • "too dangerous for young, particularly due to predators" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
  • "These leaps likely have a number of functions" – "likely", as above. "Probably" would be more normal in BrE.
  • Interactions with humans
  • "they rarely enter the farms, and quickly swim through them" – I may be missing something here but it seems to me that you can't swim through somewhere without entering it.

Those are my few gleanings – all very minor and I am happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. – Tim riley talk 09:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. This is actually NZ English, but I don't know of any differences between them. LittleJerry (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "It has been a popular tourist attraction". Why "has been"? You say below that it still is.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dispersed to their current range in response to food productivity". This is vague. Do you mean changes in food location or finding additional existing sources (or both)?
Their favored food spread throughout the Southern Hemisphere. LittleJerry (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Off South America, they range from southern Peru to Cape Horn in the west and then up to around 36°S in the east" I think it would be better to refer to the Pacific and Atlantic rather than west and east.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dusky dolphins produce three basic sounds". I think three classes (or types) of sound would be more accurate, but that is probably a matter of opinion.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known how far their sounds can be heard?
No information.
  • "Dusky dolphins are also susceptible to internal parasitism by certain nematode, cestode, and trematode species." I would delete "certain" as unnecessary.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta

[edit]
  • there's some overlinking in the lead (South America, Africa, New Zealand)
I think they should be linked in the lead. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK: "In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: Countries" what makes this article immune from this? Esculenta (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chnaged. LittleJerry (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dusky dolphin is known for its remarkable acrobatics" WP:WTW
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • why was this species named obscurus?
Its called the "dusky" dolphin. Dusky means dark.
Doesn't really answer the question. What does obscurus mean? Is this in the article? Esculenta (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
obscurus = obscure. Pretty obvious. LittleJerry (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dusky = dark = obscure/obscurus LittleJerry (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "envirnmental"
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • please list any synonyms in the taxobox (with a source)
This is not necessary or required. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you not want to list its official alternative names in the summative box specifically designed to hold taxonomic information about the species? Esculenta (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It takes up too much space and is not important for the readers. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can just collapse the synonym list if you find it too long, like in red rail. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article mentions that three subspecies have been "classified" (not quite sure what this implies; has L. o. superciliosus not been "classified"?) but doesn't give any substantive info about them. What makes them different from the nominative subspecies? What do the subspecies epithets mean? When was that fourth subspecies proposed? Why has it not been accepted?
There is no information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is. How can this possibly be considered a complete overview of this species without giving information about two of its subspecies? Esculenta (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • didn't see any info on lifespan.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • how big are the newborns?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Society for Marine Mammalogy (SMM) still classifies these six species under Lagenorhynchus as of 2025." Citation date is given as 13 November 2016. Article was retrieved at 14 July 2021.
The page still gets updated, regardless of when it was first accessed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's "interesting" that you give a cladogram from the 2025 paper that depicts a construct that contradicts the phylogenetic background the current genus is based on, but without any explanation of the discrepancy, except for a prior statement "The Society for Marine Mammalogy (SMM) still classifies these six species under Lagenorhynchus as of 2025." However, that page was last updated June 2024, so of course it still has the old scheme. Perhaps a fix would be to write "As of June 2024, the Society for Marine Mammalogy (SMM) still classifies …"
There is no information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you understand the request? Esculenta (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
The paper suggests new ones and that would just get confusing. LittleJerry (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any photos of juveniles?
Can'd find any. LittleJerry (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect subspecies and synonyms here.
I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subspecies and synonym names are valid search terms and should be made into redirects. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with the quality of this article. LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of article improvement to make search terms direct to it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give location for the taxobox image?
None given, expect "Atlantic Ocean". LittleJerry (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro seams a bit short for an article this length.
I disagree. Its a short article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded some. LittleJerry (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, anything more? LittleJerry (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dusky dolphin would gain its scientific name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, from the American biologist Frederick W. True in 1889." That's an odd way to put it, as you already state when it first got its first scientific name with "The dusky dolphin was described as Delphinus obscurus" You should specify that it was moved to the existing genus Lagenorhynchus in 1889 which it is still considered part of today or some such, the current wording is misleading.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • State what the scientific name means.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "somewhere in the South Pacific or Indian Ocean" The oceans should be linked here at first mention.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested" Add "with other species", as the current wording doesn't make much sense.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source about the supposed hybnrids only say "possible", so the wording in the article seems too certain.
Thats why it says "suggested". But added "possible". LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link the term subspecies at first mention.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fitzroy's dolphin (L. o. fitzroyi, Waterhouse, 1838)" This appears to be the same taxon as that you state was described by Darwin earlier. Should be clarified.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subspecies should also have authorities in the taxobox.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This complete skeleton photo[3] is perhaps more informative than just the skull photo.
Not a very good photo with the background and lighting. The skull is the most distinctive part of the skeleton anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the colouration of juveniles?
Same as adults. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should be stated in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't make distinctions between adults and calves and the article doesn't suggest they are different either. LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk? LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Off Peru, parasites include those of the genera Nasitrema and Anisakis, Phyllobothrium delphini, Braunina cordiformis, and Pholeter gasterophilus" The last three are species, so you should be less specific than "genera" at the start of the sentence.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

Just the two comments. Can we be more specific here; "Diseases recorded in the species include poxvirus, papillomavirus, and various genital diseases." Poxviruses and to some extent papillomaviruses are diverse groups of viruses (they are not diseases) and viruses are usually host species specific, so I would expect to see "cetacean poxvirus" (which causes tattoo skin disease) and "cetacean papillomaviruses" (which causes warts that can become cancerous). And do we know more about the various genital diseases? Graham Beards (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have taken the liberty of making a couple of minor edits, which I am happy to discuss. Graham Beards (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (dynamic IP)

[edit]

We're getting closer. I have a conversion script now that can change the format from the "rp" way to the "harvnb" way as I suggested earlier. However, this currently fails because there are two instances of the Vollmer reference in the "Phylogeny" section where page numbers are not indicated, so once page numbers are specified for those two instances, I can run the script (offline and with human review of the result, so it won't be a "bot edit"). 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:BB44 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion done. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, is the formatting still okay? LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it's a bit of a mix now. Why was WP:CITEVAR ignored? And why are only some of the books in harvnb format and in the biblio, and others inline? What was looking consistent before now isn't - and that's a problem as far as the source review goes. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SchroCat, I changed back. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, let me formally oppose until another solution is found to give it a more readable typesetting. To reiterate: The worst ones are [32]: 879 [28]: 569 [50]: 1563 and [32]: 885–886 [35]: 119–120, but there are a few others that could benefit. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drive-by comment: I would say, though, that using rp-templates, as done in this article, is a totally acceptable way to provide page numbers. They have problems, yes, but personally, I would argue that "harvnb" is even worse. While it is extremely frustrating that we still do not have a standard functionality to provide page numbers that is directly implemented in the mediawiki software, this is not something the editor of this article can do anything about. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • As previously stated, Harvnb is used in other FAs such as Charles Darwin. I suspect that the argument that an article can never be changed because of CITEVAR will not fly very far. And I don't know what criterion could possibly rank above readability. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reading SchroCat's response again, it seems to me that all could be resolved by more fully switching to Harvnb. Perhaps one could consider taking a progressive approach rather than reverting to a version that was already under criticism. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          No, SchroCat already approved of the formatting and Jens defended the use of the rp-templates. I'm going to be blunt and say I'm not wasting anymore time on an IP whose suggestions have made things worse, and hope the coordinators will ignore that oppose. I never thought this article would be such a nightmare. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jens is entirely right: Rp is an acceptable format on WP (and at FAC too): the co-ords will not accept the oppose as being a valid one. For the record, the rp format is not one I like at all and prefer to use the sfn template throughout, but citation format shouldn’t be about personal preference: it should run according to CITEVAR. Mid-FAC is not the time to try and force a change. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue was first raised a month ago. The oppose is made on the grounds of readability and the occurrence of long strings of numbers indicating sourcing. There are a number of ways to remedy this, but I consider the two places I have indicated to be in a worst-possible state right now as regards that. This is not a principal objection to the use of Rp. However, not using Rp would be one possible fix. As I said before, I endorse giving page numbers for longer references, but perhaps we need to talk about sensible thresholds. I would have personally said I need page numbers for publications over 25 pages long. What's important here is to address the problem, not find a "debating-club solution" for why it isn't a problem. This is the forum that concerns itself with the excellence of articles, not with account or no account, not with whether reciprocal conflicts of interest exist, and the duration of the process is not part of the criteria. I think I've now laid out my reasoning sufficiently clearly. If there is constructive discussion to be had, let's have it, but I see a risk of this becoming an exhibition of lesser qualities. Perhaps the manner of any further responses will confirm this, one way or the other. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, if you want to talk about things that are widely accepted on Wikipedia, I question the way the situation around the size comparison image was handled. In my opinion, it would have been better to look for appropriate sources rather than just delete the item. This process is about improving the article, not about relenting (in the sense of deleting) on the inclusion of information important to the reader. It took me less than 30 seconds of web searching to find comparative illustrations that would have merely needed sorting out which source belonged to which item in the image. But I have to also admit that the environment that has developed around the editing of this article makes me doubtful that any positive suggestion can actually be adopted in a mature way, as SchroCat's response very well illustrates. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: anything else? LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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/Dusky_dolphin/archive2&oldid=1286521735"