Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Narwhal/archive3

Narwhal
Also for easier reference:
 * Peer review/Narwhal/archive1
 * Peer review/Narwhal/archive2


 * Nominator(s): Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 18:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again. For the past 2 months I've been chipping in and rephrasing this article. I've recruited numerous users who provided useful tips. This is my third nomination, and I'm determined to get this article featured. I feel it's ready. Please provide your reviews below. Thank you, Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 18:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Paging previous reviewers; let's get this show on the road.   ——Serial Number 54129  18:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith (Oppose)
Just some random comments as I spot things. Looking at Special:Permalink/1226680372:
 * The rise of science towards the end of the 17th century led to a decreased belief in magic and alchemy. After it was determined that narwhal tusks were not effective antidotes, the practice of using them for this purpose was subsequently abandoned.[101]
 * Are you sure you cited the right reference? None of this appears to be mentioned in the source.
 * Used correct source
 * I'm afraid I'm not seeing where refs 103 and 104 (refering to Special:Permalink/1227222689 now) support the specific claims in those sentences.
 * from the 2019 source
 * from the 2019 source
 * from the 1954 source
 * OK, I'm almost there. The only thing I'm still confused about is more the fault of the source's author than yours.  Whe Spary says, "The progress of scientific knowledge, it is argued, led to the exposure ...", I can't figure out who's doing the arguing.  But, let's call this one verified.


 * Narwhals are internationally protected and hunting one is illegal. However, Inuit are permitted to hunt narwhals for subsistence. Narwhals are very difficult to encroach and present challenging targets for hunters.[86]
 * I'm not finding where the cited source supports this statement.
 * Fixed
 * The new source is "Anne M. Jensen, Glenn W. Sheehan, Stephen A. MacLean", which unfortunately: "Wikimedia Foundation does not subscribe to this content on ScienceDirect." Could you email me a scan of the appropriate pages, please?
 * I got the document you sent me, thanks. Unfortunately, it does not support the statement.  The relevant section is "B. Narwhal (Monodon monoceros), qilalugaq tuugaalik" (pp. 523-524) but that doesn't say anything about international protection, or the Inuit being allowed to hunt them for subsistence.  Maybe the doc you sent me is the wrong edition?  The page number and date don't match what's in the citation.
 * Removed protection part, but I got the subsistence part from
 * Take a look at this video for context. I think that should be it. Anymore you'd like to check? Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 08:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I'm going to have to state my opposition to this nomination based on failing a source spot-check. No single one of the issues I've noted here, or even a group of them, would be enough to make me say that, but I can't escape the conclusion that I lack confidence that the article as a whole says what the sources say.  In this particular instance, after several exchanges, the original text has been edited to remove a statement which (while almost certainly true) is not supported by the cited source, but in doing so, introduced another statement which this time is explicitly contradicted by the source: "For hundreds of years, Inuit people have hunted narwhals".  The source says (p 521), "Inuit have hunted marine mammals ... for millennia." and again in the Conclusion (p 525), "Inuit and their ancestors have hunted marine mammals for thousands of years".  As for the video, the goal here is to provide WP:RS for our readers, not to provide context for the reviewer.  I appreciate that you've put in a lot of effort on this article, and I feel your pain.  But from my own experience, I'm pretty sure that you're just burned out on this and just not seeing the problems with the sourcing.   Three FACs and two PRs in 5 months is going to burn anybody out.  Overall, I think this is generally well written and an important subject, but burnout is real.  I think the best thing you can do at this point is to put it down for a few months and go work on other things, then come back later and take a fresh look.  Go through it statement by statement and verify everything, but bite off little bits at a time so you don't just end up burning out again.
 * *Sigh* thanks for your help. But in the end, I'm just a broken young man who has no idea why he's putting himself through so much stress. If you look at my editing history, you'll see the most useless piece of shit on the platform. A user trying to drown his sorrows by doing something he deems important. Sorry if I'm getting emotional over this, but I'm just tired of the disappointment. I don't know what to do.  Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 21:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Duuuude calm down, at least you got vital articles to GA status. That is a significant achievement already. 48JCL  TALK  22:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that this is frustrating, but you needn't be down on yourself. The FA criteria are a high bar, especially so for a charismatic animal. The failure of a single nomination doesn't affect your worth as a person or an editor. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't failed yet. If I can check all the sources in the next 2 days, perhaps RoySmith can change his mind? I'll be starting now. Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 06:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What you are suggesting seems unwise. As I said earlier, rushing to get this done quickly isn't going to be productive. RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wolverine, that is a sure-fire way to further frustration and burnout. I have been where you are, and taking a break is, in my view, the best way to eventually making this a productive and even enjoyable exercise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll just work on Komodo dragon, dingo and dhole. And also on the short-faced bear and American lion. After I'm done with those articles I'll come back here. Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 19:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What now? Should I withdraw and come back? Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 15:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to defer to the on this. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are substantial issues registered in an oppose, withdrawing and working on it off the nominations page is probably the best path forward. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The narwhal was one of many species originally described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 Systema Naturae.[5]
 * I'm having trouble with this. The citation says "p. 824", but I think what that really means is that there's 824 pages in the book.  The URL links to page 56, which, while I can't read the Latin, doesn't appear to be about Narwhals.  Also, not clear what "originally" means in this context.
 * There are 828 pages and narwhals are at page 824 but that page is not available, so I'll link to page 822. "Originally" means his the first to describe them.
 * I think I've got the page numbering confusion sorted out. When the drop-down menu says, for example, "827 : 823", that's "physical : logical" pages.  The physical page numbers refer to the PDF file; the logical page numbers refer to what's printed on the original pages.  To make things even more confusing, when I download the PDF, they add an additional "Terms and Conditions" page to the beginning of the PDF, so the physical and logical pages get out of sync by one more.  We should certainly be referring to the logical page numbers in our citations.  So, I think we're talking about logical page 824 (which doesn't have a page number printed on it but comes after 823).  It's titled "Emendanda", which Google Translate says means "To be corrected".  Am I at least looking at the right page?
 * Wrong page, sorry. After some digging I found it to be on page 75. Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Verified. RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong page, sorry. After some digging I found it to be on page 75. Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Verified. RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the process here; does this nomination require a full source spot-check? RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RoySmith, it does, yes. And a plagiarism check. If you felt able to oblige that would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that creaking I hear my arm being twisted? RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rolling 10 d 101 (i.e. ) gives   RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * A 2020 phylogenetic study based on genome sequencing suggested that, around 4.98 million years ago (mya), the narwhal split from the beluga whale.[17]
 * Verified


 * The purpose of the narwhal tusk is debated. Some biologists suggest that narwhals use their tusks in fights, while others argue that their tusks may be of use in breaking sea ice or in finding food. There is a scientific consensus that tusks are secondary sexual characteristics which indicate social status.[35]
 * Partially verified. I see where the source talks about using the tusk for fighting, and sexual dimorphism.  Perhaps I'm just missing it, but the only mentions I see of feeding are for beaked whales.  And I see no mention of breaking sea ice anywhere.
 * Rm part about breaking see ice. As for feeding, see the part that says
 * OK, that works. As a stylistic issue, I suggest that you be more specific than "some biologists", i.e: "Joe Scientist suggests that..."


 * The tusk is a highly innervated sensory organ with millions of nerve endings that connect seawater stimuli to the brain, allowing the narwhal to sense temperature variability in its surroundings.[36][37][38]
 * Verified, but based on 37, you could also talk about detecting pressure changes and particle gradients. On the other hand, for a scientific article like this, it's preferable to stick to the scientific literature (ref 36) and avoid popular press (refs 37 and 38) if you can.
 * Done


 * The narwhal is found predominantly in the Atlantic and Russian areas of the Arctic Ocean. Individuals are commonly recorded in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago,[43][44]
 * Partially verified. Ref 34 talks about the population in the Russian area.  I can only get at the abstract of ref 33, but I can see that it talks about the population in the North Atlantic.  However, it's a bit of WP:SYNTH to take these two sources and combine them to say they are found predominantly in those areas.  For all we know, these two papers are talking about two specific populations, but there's another (much larger) population that lives in the South Pacific.  No, I don't think that's the case, but without a source for found predominantly, I don't think you can say that.
 * Rm word, but there's no population in the South Pacific, at least from what I can see.
 * No, I don't imagine there is; that was a (deliberately) absurd example. But my point is that if you have a RS that says "this happens in place X" and another which says "this happens in place Y", it's SYNTH to say "this happens predominantly in places X and Y" because those two sources said nothing about other places it might be happening.


 * When in their wintering waters, narwhals make some of the deepest dives recorded for marine mammals, diving to at least 800 m (2,620 ft) over 15 times per day, with many dives reaching 1,500 m (4,920 ft). Dives to these depths last around 25 minutes.[50] Dive times can also vary in depth, based on season and local variation between environments. For example, in the Baffin Bay wintering grounds, narwhals tend to dive deep within the precipitous coasts, typically south of Baffin Bay. This suggests differences in habitat structure, prey availability, or genetic adaptations between subpopulations. In the northern wintering grounds, narwhals do not dive as deep as the southern population, in spite of greater water depths in these areas. This is mainly attributed to prey being concentrated nearer to the surface, which causes narwhals to subsequently alter their foraging strategies.[50]
 * Partially verified. I see where it says Narwhals make deeper dives in the winter than they do in the summer, but I don't see where they are compared to other marine mammals.  I can't verify "diving to at least 800 m (2,620 ft) over 15 times per day"; that seems at odds with the data in Table 3.  I'm also confused by the statement "In the northern wintering grounds, narwhals do not dive as deep as the southern population" which seems at odds with what was said earlier.  There's a lot of information cited to this one reference and it's a 12 page paper, so I'm having trouble finding it all.  Perhaps you could walk me though where each sentence in the paragraph is backed up by something in the paper?
 * As a minor nit, the two citations to ref 50 can be combined into a single citation at the end of the paragraph.
 * For the first sentence, see on page 276
 * On the same page see for northern and southern Baffin Bay and it goes on but this is the important bit
 * For the third sentence, see page 276; it was not collected from one sentence.
 * For the prey see
 * and
 * OK, I'm seeing most of that (in what's now ref 51 of Special:Permalink/1227227354). I still don't see where it talks about "deepest dives recorded for marine mammals".
 * Used source that says
 * You're talking about "Paradoxical escape responses by narwhals (Monodon monoceros)". The source says "deepest-diving cetaceans", but you turned that into "deepest-diving marine mammals"  You need to say what the source says.  "Marine mammal" is apparently an informal term which includes more than just the cetaceans.
 * Fixed


 * The narwhal vocal repertoire is similar to that of the beluga whale. They have comparable whistle frequency ranges, whistle duration and repetition rates of pulse calls, though beluga whistles are thought to have a higher frequency range and more diversified whistle contours.[65]
 * Partially verified. The relevant section seems to be on p 457 ("Similarities in beluga and narwhal echolocation clicks"), but I'm not seeing where the specific claims in this sentence regarding frequency, duration, and repetition rates are supported.  Could you walk me through the details?
 * The paper is specifically about the differences in vocalizations. I say they are similar because the aforementioned section and the paper in general implies exactly that. There's no specific sentence where the statement can attributed, rather it's a summarization of the entire paper. Also, the data in the tables back up the statements. No biologist in their right mind will publish a paper on the differences in vocalizations between an elephant and a chipmunk. I hope you see what I'm trying to say.
 * The problem is, what you're describing is exactly what WP:SYNTH says you can't do: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. We're not looking for what sources imply.  We're looking for what sources say.
 * Rephrased per


 * Major predators are polar bears, which typically wait at breathing holes for young narwhals.[20][69]
 * Partially verify. Both sources say that polar bears prey on Narwhal, but calling them a "major" predator is not justified by the sources, which use words like "occasionally" and "rarely".  The bit about "typically wait at breathing holes" is an exaggeration from "have been observed" and "in one particular event".
 * Edited


 * Orcas group together to overwhelm and surround narwhal pods[70]
 * Partially verify. The source talks about most of this, but it's not clear if it's talking about one orca attacking a bunch of narwhal, or if it's a group of orca working together. It's entirely possible I just missed that part, so please point me to the right place if I have.
 * It's clearly talking about pods
 * If it was clear, I wouldn't have asked :-) I did a careful read of the entire source and found "Many interviewees described the cooperative nature of killer whale attack" and "the smaller killer whales would come close to the shore to grab a narwhal and then head back out into deeper water, where the larger killer whales stayed."  I also found https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/orca/ which says "Orcas hunt in deadly pods".  I apologize for harping on this point, but we need to be saying exactly what our sources say.


 * killing up to dozens of narwhals in a single attack.[71]
 * Partially verified. All I can access is the 3 minute teaser video and that only talks about a pod of narwhal, but nothing about "dozens"
 * Rephrased


 * As narwhals grow, bioaccumulation of heavy metals take place.[79]
 * Verified

Summarizing, there's a couple of citations that I can't verify at all, and for most of the rest I was unable to verify every detail. So there's some work to be done here. This is the first time I've done a spot-check, so I don't know where this should go from here.

Note that this was just looking at verifying that facts asserted in the article were supported by the cited source. I didn't look at any of the source formatting stuff; I'll leave that for somebody else. I wasn't specifically looking for plagiarism, but from what I saw, I don't have any concerns there. I found one passage that could be construed to be WP:CLOP, but ultimately decided it wasn't a problem.


 * I appreciate the review RoySmith. I will comment in a couple of hours. My family and friends are gathered to watch Dortmund vs. Real Madrid in the UCL final, therefore I can't get to this right now. I hope Madrid prevails, but I'll see you later. Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 18:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this week has been extremely hectic. I don't think I'll be able to get to this until Monday. I'll still be editing of course, but I won't have time to address the issues posted on this page. Thanks for your understanding, Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 13:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks for the heads up. Better to take your time and get it right than try to rush through it to meet some non-existant deadline. RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Addressed all. Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 19:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde
A creditable effort at a large and important topic, thanks for bringing it here. I look forward to reading it, comments follow. Please feel free to dispute any copy-edits I make. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) That's all from me on a first pass. I made a few copy-edits, but the prose feels a little scratchy to me in places; I may want to go over it again once more comments have been addressed. I think this is a creditable piece of work, however, and not far off of FA status. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "exhibit a high fidelity of return" is a little awkward, to me. I would suggest "often returning to the same sites in subsequent years". The sentence also has some grammatical issues: "migrates...exhibit".
 * Fixed
 * "Magnus later assigned it to "Monocerote"..." so why was Linneaus's description the first?
 * Linnaeus was the first to scientifically described the species. Most animal species had early variants of names before being recognized as valid taxa under science. The lion for example was not discovered in 1758 but was scientifically described in that year. If you look at that article, there were earlier variants of the name before the scientific description. So Magnus drew a painting depicting an animal similar to the narwhal and assigned it to Monocerote. Linnaeus likely used Magnus's depiction to officially recognize narwhal as a species.
 * I recognize that, but you have a wording issue: "assigned" is misleading here, it's a term we usually use for taxonomic studies. "Called it", perhaps? What was Monocerote, anyway? At Magnus's time I don't believe anyone used genera for mammals. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Edited. No, Taxonomy was not yet established but people still named animals. Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The body records one known hybrid narwhal-beluga; but the lead implies multiple instances.
 * Fixed
 * "genome sequencing" is ambiguous, and today would usually imply whole genomes; the paper uses mitochondrial DNA, and I think the text should make that explicit.
 * Fixed
 * I have a few suggestions related to the phylogeny. First, the phylogeny refers to extinct taxa that you don't mention in the text. Given that you refer elsewhere to the white whale family, a sentence or two about the extinct taxa wouldn't go amiss. Second, it occurs to me that readers may be interested in the position of Narwhals within cetacea, rather than just a superfamily. I'd suggest concatenating this phylogeny with that presented at Toothed whale, but I'm open to discussion. Finally, and entirely optional; you could illustrate the extant branches with thumbnails, as at toothed whale.
 * Done
 * That's not quite what I meant; you now have two phylogenies, images only in one. I was suggesting combining them, which you can safely do without OR if you omit Kentriodon. Also, I appreciate that you put something in about extinct taxa, but a sentence about a single genus of four(?) doesn't actually elucidate much. I was hoping for more of a summary sentence; it could be as plain as "Several extinct species toothed whales have been identified, including multiple close relatives of narwhals". This is supported by the Bianucci source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to combine them :( Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I should be constructing the phylogeny for you as a reviewer, but perhaps you could ask for assistance at the biology wikiproject? Alternatively I'd be happy to recuse and work on that section a little; the order of information is a little counter-intuitive, and you have information about evolution in the first sub-section.
 * Yes, please work on the section. I'll ask for assistance at WikiProject Biology.
 * Can you please finalize and fix the positioning of the some of the genera at User:Reconrabbit/Narwhalcladogram? Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 14:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Narwhals are toothed whales, yes? If their only teeth are vestigial (plus the tusk), this warrants further explanation, I think.
 * Apparently, research is ongoing and there's limited/no information on this
 * Having skimmed some of the sources, including this one, it seems to me a sentence or two could easily be added. Among other things, it would appear there is only one pair of vestigial teeth in the adult, not "several".
 * Added
 * I think a distribution map would be very helpful, and given a well-characterizes and wide distribution I think it's almost necessary at the FA level.
 * Should I create another map or reuse the one in the infobox?
 * Missed that somehow. I think a reuse is justified here, just so you can show it a bit bigger, but if someone else objects I won't hold you up over this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the same map with labels and legends to show where the different populations reside? Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't entirely clear to me what an entrapment event is.
 * It's when ice freezes over and there's very little open water. This limits the movement of narwhals since breathing holes are few and far between. If their breathing holes freeze over, they'll drown under the ice. I think I explained that in the article.
 * That explanation is present, but it isn't connected to the term entrapment that you later use to summarize the phenomenon.
 * Clarified to avoid confusion
 * Can you work in a link to climate change, or a sub-article thereof, when discussing sea-ice change?
 * I don't understand
 * We have articles discussing the consequences of climate change for arctic sea ice, which is what "sea ice changes" refers to. It would be appropriate to link to an article or section thereof.
 * Added a link
 * I think Brucella needs a gloss; also, did it actually cause disease in the animals it was detected in?
 * Glossed, and the source doesn't say
 * "837 narwhals in the waters off Svalbard" this is almost certainly an overly precise figure; at the very least, "estimated" is needed.
 * Fixed
 * The various committees listed in the conservation section need glosses.
 * Glossed a little bit
 * I mean specifically CITES, CMS, and COSEWIC.
 * Glossed
 * I'm not sure how to reword this exactly, but the final paragraph needs to make it clearer that essentially all the medical or scientific uses the tusks were put to were not supported by actual science. The last sentence attempts to do this, but its placement, and the specificity to antidotes, undermines the message a little bit.
 * Reworded a bit
 * I don't think this fully addresses my concern. "Used to detect poison" implies that this was actually possible, when it isn't. The same holds true for other sentences.
 * Rephrased
 * I will say I just read RoySmith's source review (my bad; should have done so earlier). In a scientific article I find the verification issues particularly concerning. However, I will also note my suspicion that these result from imprecise summarization rather than anything more egregious. I suggest using the plainest possible language to summarize sources; in many cases it is the adjectives that appear to be the problem, and in general they can simply be omitted (eg: "most conspicuous" -> "a conspicuous"). I hate to sound downbeat, but I suggest examining every source, not just the ones Roy flagged. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just so there's no surprises, my plan here is to let @Wolverine XI work through the issues I found so far and then give them time to, as you say, examine the rest of the sources in detail. When they're done with that, I'll do another statistically sampled spot check and see where things stand at that point.  I should mention that the citations in my first FAC were a disaster.  I was extraordinarily fortunate to have @Eddie891 as a reviewer; they invested a huge amount of time helping me sort out the mess and I feel obligated to pay that kindness forward here. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort you're putting in here, and agree that that is the best way to go forward. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Addressed all. Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 19:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "Narwhals live an average of 50 years" given that you supply the method for the other estimate, I think it'd be appropriate to say how we know this.
 * Added
 * I had meant to do another read-through today, with a particular eye toward checks for comprehensiveness; but I can't see my way to supporting when there is an outstanding oppose on verifiability issues. I echo Roy's comments above; sometimes you need to take a step away from an article, work on something else, and return to it. Given the issues Roy mentions, I don't see how this could pass without another spotcheck, and the only way to ensure that you pass that is to check every citation. I know it's hard to hear this, but taking a break from this topic will perhaps make that labor easier to do in the future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Therapyisgood

 * Nothing on parasites of them? Is there any research? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added something in "longevity and mortality factors" Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 04:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ? Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 19:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

750h

 * Leaving as a placeholder. 750h+ 00:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note
I don't think that this is going to move to a consensus to promote within a reasonable timescale, so I am going to archive it. I think that Vanamonde's parting advice is spot on. The article is clearly most of the way towards FA and I think that the issues raised above are best dealt with away from the time pressure of FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)