Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sea Otter/archive1

Sea Otter

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it soundly meets the criteria. Samsara noadmin (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have a few structural and other minor points that I think need to be addressed.

The sea otter was formerly sometimes referred to as the sea beaver, : is it necessary to bolden an former and inaccurate name?

The sea otter's long whiskers and front paws are sensitive and help the otter to find prey by touch. Can this be added to the previous paragraph rather than sitting all on its lonesome.

 Done Samsara noadmin (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, since smell and touch are discussed, what about other senses? Which sense, in particular, is used to locate prey (I'm presuming touch, but this is never explicitly spelled out.

Distribution and habitat Hasn't distribution already been handled in taxonomy? Do you need to rehash it?

Does this solve the concern? Samsara noadmin (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely the intro isn't the right place for it, the intro should be summarising info in the article, not presenting info not held elsewhere (and abstract of sorts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that in an actionable way? Samsara noadmin (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fur trade and Recovery and conservation are currently both major subsections; wouldn't it make more sense to have a single major subsection (relationship with humans) with Fur trade and recovery as subsections (and the various sub sub sections below them)? :Also, these are charismatic animals, do they draw tourism and cultural interest? Are they flagship species used to promote conservation? I also vaguely recall some opposition to them as competitors with humans for abalone and sea urchins - worth at least addressing.

Overall this is close and I look forward to supporting it after these mostly small changes have been made. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm delighted to see this nomination! I've been working on this article for the past two months. However, I think this FAC is premature, as the article does need the expansions that Sabine's Sunbird mentions. I have the sources and just need to finish putting everything together. Then I would like to do a peer review and come back here in a few weeks. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nomination is exciting and well-deserved. Clayoquot has put in enormous amounts of quality work in the past several months and the result is easily already as good as many other FA's. That said, there are a couple of major points and several minor points I would add to Sabine's suggestions:

1) More on evolution and phylogeny! What is the relationship to other Lutrinae? Other Mustelids? Other Caniforms (Pinnipeds, Ursids, Procyonids)? What is the fossil record? What is known about how it colonized the Pacific Ocean? A phylogenetic tree would be very welcome.

2) More on interactions with humans! Sea otters have shared habitat with indigenous people of the North Pacific for tens of thousands of years before they were described by Europeans. They were an important resource, both material and cultural, to the Ainu, Koryak, Aleuts, Inuit, Tlingit, Haida and other peoples. This deserves more than the one sentence in the current version. (Coincidentally, just today I went to a Kuril Island archaeology seminar where the speaker showed a whalebone amulet carving in the shape of a sea otter, maybe 1500-3000 years old, they had excavated just last summer... it was pretty amazing).

You sound like you're the only person here qualified to cover that aspect. Wanna lend a hand? Samsara noadmin (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure I can do some work on this, but not immediately. Real life is rearing it's ugly head!... Eliezg (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a section on human cultures. It is largely lifted from the (rather excellent) Russian article, and I can't actually personally vouch for all of the sources - so that might be an issue. I don't know how to make the image look more compatible with the style. It's OK, but the caption is different from the other captions. It is difficult to obtain information easily on otters in North American coastal cultures, so I don't have any information there. Also, I think this should be a subsection within a larger section on "Relationships with humans", but that requires structural surgery that I am unwilling to perform. Best, Eliezg (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

more minor points:

3) Dentition formula needed

4) References could be compacted: there are lots of repetitions ("Silverstein, p. 38"', "Love 63"'s etc.) that can be flattened.

 Done Samsara noadmin (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

5) Some passages are a little choppy.

6) I strongly second Sabine on structural changes! It's tricky to balance Range/Status against the History of Exploitation, since the former is a consequence of the latter. But I would still suggest put brief comments on the Range, Habitat and Status by region first, followed by an extended "Relationship with humans" section that includes the history of exploitation and conservation efforts.

One random thing I'd like to rave about is the picture captions. It's not often on Wikipedia that they are as informative and conscientiously related to the content as they are here - even if they are almost all very similar shots of swimming sea otters! Anyways, looking forward to seeing what happens. Best, Eliezg (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. A lovely article! Superb well-chosen images. Some small things (and there may be a few more to come):

• By current rules, the caption of the image at the top should have a full stop.

 Done Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is ugly and even slightly ambiguous: "in late winter/spring and then again in late summer/autumn." Such slashes are not good form; and "winter/spring" might itself be taken as a unified period. Try this: "in late winter or early spring, and then again in late summer or early autumn." Better style in continuous prose.

I've put it in, giving you credit; don't think anyone will remove it. ;) Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence dashes (that is, dashes other than those marking ranges and the like) are inconsistent. One is just a spaced hyphen. Choose one style and apply it consistently. Also, some range-marking en dashes are spaced, but should not be.
• Citations need to be made regular and consistent. Ranges of pages sometimes appear with "pp." (or "Pp."), sometimes with just "p."; sometimes with an en dash, sometimes with a hyphen; sometimes the hyphen is spaced, sometimes not. Full stops are not always rationally deployed in the notes (why is there none for note 79?), and other punctuation seems occasionally arbitrary and inconsistent also (see note 90, and others).

 Done I think I caught all instances of this. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For all of these points see WP:MOS. There's not much effort needed to fix these!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A few more points:

1) Perhaps the "keystone species" concept should be removed from the lead? While it is important, it is also a somewhat subtle and, in my view, distracting concept. It is also, in fact, a somewhat speculative/qualitative concept.

2) The physical description needs comments on pelage coloration, range of tones and darknesses, difference with age, etc. This is important anyway in a description of species, but particularly so in view of the particular importance of otter fur.

3) "Physical characteristics" should be separated from "Behavior" and expanded.

4) Diet should be separated from Hunting/Feeding Behavior, probably included in Ecology. It should also contained some quantitative data on the role of various prey items as well as differences throughout the range, which are significant.

• Not to be a stick in the mud, but I think there is enough work that needs to be done on the content and structure of the article that an FAC might be premature. A peer-review would be beneficial. Best, Eliezg (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Why spend the effort on two processes, when one would suffice? The outcome of peer review would be a FAC anyway, why not just do it now and get it done with? There isn't *THAT* much in the article to do, and there's no giant rush. Peer review is more for articles that don't know where to go. I think it's pretty clear here what needs to be done. pschemp | talk 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, FAC reviews are most useful for attracting attention to fixing formatting and maintaining consistency with Wikipedia style. They are relatively weak on assessing content. The subject of this article is essentially scientific, and it has some shortcomings as an overview of a biological organism. By the time everything is addressed, including some relatively fundamental structural changes outlined above, it will need another full format reading. The only content related comments or contributions that have been made so far have been my own, and while I am a professional in a related field, I am not comfortable with being the ONLY person to assess the article for it's content. My impression is that Clayoquot, who is almost solely responsible for bringing this article to the condition it is now, feels the same way... Oh, wait, forget "think"! Here are Clayoquot's exact words from above: "I think this FAC is premature... Then I would like to do a peer review and come back here in a few weeks." Best, Eliezg (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is already much longer than other species FAs - compare with the condor, also nominated and going well. It is fairly clear that it's already comprehensive. Keep in mind that you're writing an encyclopaedic article, not a mini-textbook. As for credentials, I don't think I want to be having this debate. My recent impressions of peer review are that you'd be lucky to get one decent commentary. SPR, meanwhile, is defunct. If there are people that you want to look at the article, why not invite them here? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Super-quick note before I run to catch a bus for the weekend: As the person here who is probably most familiar with the source material, I know there are some significant content gaps. My plan is to keep writing to do the obvious things, discuss the non-obvious change requests on Talk, and only then drop a note on the talk pages of the relevant wikiprojects plus a few FA writers to ask for further feedback. I would follow this sequence whether a discussion continues to happen at this particular FAC nom or not. The article may change only 10% or so via this process but it's important to get there. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This piece needs a lot of work. It is overly-long, has structural problems, and I would like to check the trustworthiness of the sources, seeing as the author uses Wikipedia to advance her own Canadian West Coat leftist agenda. Please see her posts on the Wikipedia page regarding the overturning of the deletion of the Rachel Marsden page in which she links to her own blog that contains a very vivid discussion of her agenda and is extremely critical of Wikipedia governance.Mike Bate (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)