Talk:Narwhal/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 05:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I propose to take on this review. At first inspection this appears to be a well-written and well-referenced article and I will look at it in detail in the next day or two. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

First reading

 * Where you have a word such as "melon" or "advection" that is unfamiliar to many readers, it is useful to provide a brief explanation so that they don't have to click through.
 * Explained. ( I think I need your help for the fifth comment)


 * "... a separate clade which diverged from the Delphinoidea within the past 11 million years." - If they are part of Delphinoidea they can't have diverged from it!
 * Diverged from the rest of it.


 * "Narwhals do not have a dorsal fin, possibly an evolutionary adaptation to swimming easily under ice. Its neck ..." - You need to make the description section either singular or plural, but not mix the two.
 * made all plural, unless it is specifically talking about one individual (eg. female with two tusks).


 * Think about your dimensions and their equivalents in imperial measure. For example, for "lengths from 1.5 to 3.1 m (4 ft 11 in to 10 ft 2 in)" I would prefer "lengths from about 1.5 to 3 m (5 to 10 ft)".
 * I think I have fixed those.


 * "... some narwhals have a second, small tooth." - This seems to contradict what goes before and needs more explanation.
 * Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the paragraph about the use of the narwhal tusk places too much emphasis on what was previously thought to be its function and the modern view. (Query, not part of the review, if the tusk is primarily a sensory organ, why don't all females have them?)
 * address both concerns. LittleJerry (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The blow-hole is mentioned under communication but not elsewhere. Surfacing to breath must be an important part of this animal's life?
 * I don't think this is necessary since all cetaceans have these. I would not see the need to mention nostrils on land mammals. LittleJerry (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Starvation can also threaten their lives, especially in young whales." - This sentence is not very grammatical.
 * fixed now


 * "Narwhals that have been brought into captivity tend to die of natural causes." - I think you really mean that they are difficult to keep in captivity.
 * done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "One study found that many metals are low in abundance ..." - Perhaps "have low concentrations ..."
 * done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Narwhals are one of the most vulnerable Arctic marine mammals to climate change. One of the aspects that make narwhals vulnerable to climate change is ..." - You could combine these sentences.
 * done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Scientists urge assessment of population numbers and the assignment of sustainable quotas for stocks of as well as the collaboration of management agreements to ensure local acceptance." - This sentence is a bit muddled.
 * fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the references lack access dates and/or page numbers.
 * Not really important for GA. LittleJerry (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is looking pretty good. That's all I have time for at the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Queen Elizabeth received a carved and bejewelled narwhal tusk for £10,000" - I think you should say Queen Elizabeth I, but there are other problems with this sentence. Do yo mean "worth £10,000"? The reference seems to be a conversion calculator, not a reference for the main fact.
 * Fixed ref, will notify once the rest is done. Fixed


 * "... a narwhal tusk hung for "a long period" in Windsor Castle after Sir Martin Frobisher had given it to Queen Elizabeth." - The same tusk as mentioned previously presumably?
 * Actually, no.
 * So Queen Elizabeth I had two narwhal's tusks did she? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple more points. I will consider the lead section later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In the lead you mention that the narwhal is "the animal with the largest canines". - This does not appear in the body of the text and needs a source. Nor is it correct, stated in that way, because most narwhals have a single tusk.
 * Fixed wording, "possesses a large "tusk" made from a protruding canine tooth"


 * "It lives year-round in the Arctic." - Does it live exclusively in the article or does it sometimes range further south?
 * Hehehe, not the "article", the "arctic" (Haven't fixed yet, had to point the above out though)
 * Done
 * Careless of me! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "For both genders, including the male's tusk, the total body size can range from 3.95 to 5.5 metres" - I think you mean excluding.
 * Fixed


 * "At around 11 to 13 years old, the males become sexually mature; females become sexually mature at about 5 to 8 years old."- This sentence structure could be improved.
 * Split into two sentences to help with flow problem


 * "In the winter, the male narwhals occasionally dive up to 1,500 metres (4,900 feet) in depth," - You have already given this information earlier in the paragraph.
 * Removed earlier mention


 * "They are often killed when the sea ice freezes over and they cannot breathe." - Killed by whom? It sounds as if humans are involved!
 * Corrected

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Cwmhiraeth, I have fixed all the comments, any more before the article is ready for GA? IJReid (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Criteria

 * 1a The article is well written and certain improvements to the prose have been made during the course of this review.
 * 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines as to layout and section headings etc.
 * 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements.
 * 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
 * 3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
 * 4 The article is neutral
 * 5 The article has been worked on harmoniously by several people in the last month or so.
 * 6 The images are either in the public domain or have appropriate licences. (I'm not sure about the video clip's status.)
 * 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
 * Overall assessment - Pass.