Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dusky dolphin/archive1

Dusky dolphin

Featured article candidates/Dusky dolphin/archive1

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I brought this article to GA status over ten years ago. In past couple weeks, I've made some changes to it, including adding more information and sources. I now leave it to you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

It is commonly thought that the dusky dolphin was first described by John Edward Gray – how can this possibly under debate, when there are nomenclatural rules? And nothing is mentioned later on that he might not have described it.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot from a specimen collected off the coast of Tasmania two years before his own classification – the key question (regarding priority of names) here is when this dolphin was described, right? Why is this not mentioned?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

before gaining another name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, – its the current name, not just "another", right?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

from stuffed skin – "from a stuffed skin"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and sent to the British Museum though the Royal College of Surgeons – this meaning of "though" is new to me, but I'm not a native speaker.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is commonly thought that the dusky dolphin was first described by John Edward Gray in 1828 from stuffed skin and a single skull shipped from the Cape of Good Hope to the British Museum. Gray first described the species as Delphinus obscurus and reported that the animal was captured around the Cape of Good Hope by a Captain Haviside (often misspelt "Heaviside") and sent to the British Museum though the Royal College of Surgeons in 1827. – This whole paragraph is a bit low quality. It doesn't really go in-depth about the first description (I would definitely look-up and cite the first description itself, too). Also, it says shipped from the Cape of Good Hope to the British Museum and in the next sentence, repeats that very same information.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

before his own classification – "classification" should be "description"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

link "described" to species description

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dusky dolphin was reclassified as Prodelphinus obscurus in 1885 by British naturalist William Henry Flower, before gaining another name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, from American biologist Frederick W. True in 1889. – I feel this lacks context, and you did not even link to those genera mentioned, and do not explain what this means for its relationships.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 1999 mitochondrial cytochrome b gene indicates that the genus Lagenorhynchus, as traditionally conceived, is not a natural (monophyletic) group. – Related to my point above, clearly lacks context; you never explained how that genus was traditionally conceived, and you do not even mention which species it now contains, apart from the dusky dolphin.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 2006 finds that the dusky and the Pacific white-sided dolphin form the sister group to the (expanded) genus Cephalorhynchus. – Again, context: You have to explain what "expanded" means here, it is completely meaningless for me, even though I think that I know something about phylogenetics.

removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this placement is accurate, a new genus name will need to be coined to accommodate these two species – But the two species are already united in the genus Lagenorhynchus? Why is a new genus name required to "accomodate" them?

Changed wording. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

are moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias – should explain what Sagmatias was, and why it fell in disuse.

The source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested – "suggested" means that these identifications are uncertain? Why is that?

Based on photography LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this placement is accurate, a new genus name will need to be coined to accommodate these two species – The study is from 2006. Is this up-to-date?

Changed wording LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following cladogram is based on Banguera-Hinestroza and colleges (2014) – "colleges"? Colleagues? Link "cladogram"? Is this a genetic or morphological analysis?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose – I only went through the first four paragraphs, and just too many issues show up. Has this been at peer review? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been peer reviewed. That draws hardly anybody. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you now removed a lot of content instead of adding context. Thanks for adding the year of description for D. supercilious, but what I don't get: How can it be a "junior synonym" when it was named a year earlier? That would make it a senior synonym, no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. I removed content that was clearly causing confusion and simplified it. The point is, genetic evidence does not support the traditional Lagenorhynchus species being one unique grouping. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still not clear to me. According to Synonym (taxonomy), the earliest published name is called the senior synonym, while the later name is the junior synonym. The earlier name cannot be the junior synonym. You give two sources for this; I could only access the first, which did not mention junior synonym here, but it does say that, apparently, the first description was based on several skins (so you took my suggestion without checking what the sources actually say), and it also speaks of several skulls, not just one skull. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified further. The second source mentions the junior synonym. Please don't accuse me of not checking the sources. I checked the second source. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the inaccuracy with the skin/skins, and only wanted to say "don't trust what I say, always double-check with the source". Now you say "skin" again but shouldn't it be plural? Maybe "from stuffed skins with skulls", since the skulls were apparently inside the skins, and from the same individuals? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

brachy08

hi! im doing yet another FA review (i have no experience with animal-related articles, so extra points for that)

However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described and as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot in 1826 based on a specimen near Tasmania. → However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described ~~and~~ as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot in 1826, based on a specimen near Tasmania.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested based on observations and on photographic evidence, including with a common dolphins.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~The teeth number between 108 and 144. Missing an is.~~

Not needed. You can use "number" that way in the present tense like "they numbered over 50 people" in the past tense

Clarified. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Kaikōura Canyon, New Zealand, group size can reach 1,000 dolphins, while in Admiralty Bay, they peak around only 50 animals. Seems a bit inconsistent (dolphins and animals)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whistling ~~are~~ is more common when dusky dolphins mingle with other dolphin species such as common dolphins.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dusky dolphin is listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals meaning that it has an "unfavourable conservation status" and may require international co-operation organised by tailored agreements. → The dusky dolphin is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, meaning that it has an "unfavourable conservation status" and may require international cooperation organised by tailored agreements.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extra period at the end of the sentence brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all properly licensed/free work. Missing ALT text tho

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

overalls

Mostly a good read, will leave the source review to someone else. for now, you have my support.

Image review

Don't use fixed px size

File:Dusky_dolphin_size.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this diagram? Ditto File:Cetacea_range_map_Dusky_Dolphin.PNG. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]