Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steller's sea cow/archive1

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2017 [1].

Steller's sea cow

Nominator(s): User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Steller's sea cow, a large sirenian that went extinct in modern times. I believe this article's up to FA criteria User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

Will read through this soon, but at first glance, I see somewhat serious problems, but since you usually work fast and effectively, I think they can be worked out. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is a bit messy to combine all info about physical features, biology, and ecology, into one large section, it would be better to keep them in separate section, as in virtually all other articles, to keep focus. Now the section jumps wildly between unrelated subjects.

split User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are combining a section that should be abut distribution facts with unconfirmed "sightings" long after the confirmed extinction date. Info about such "sightings" (and anything else not based on facts) should be moved to the extinction section, as they have nothing to do with the confirmed historical range of the animal.

done, but I kept the part about Turner in the range section, and anything talking about its range up into the 1800s. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems quite short, but I guess not much is known about this animal. Have you looked through Google scholar and similar for further sources?

I'll get to expanding later. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notable fact that it had no finger bones is not mentioned, which also makes me uncertain about the comprehensiveness of the rest of the text. Perhaps there should be more purely descriptive info about the skeleton, all we have left of the animal.

Found this but it's really technical, and I can't understand a word of it. Think you can help? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can ignore the detailed description section of that article (unless you find something that is udnerstandable) and jump straight so summarising interesting bits of the conclusion and discussion sections of that article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added a paragraph User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the only known drawing from life was made by a Friedrich H. Plenisner[2], yet this article credits Steller himself. The drawing shown in this article also appears to be of uncertain origin. If your sources discuss the circumstances of these illustrations, it is very important info to add.

You mean add it to the caption or to the article? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the article, but the caption would of course have to be modified accordingly. There are two issues that need to be handled: there were drawings made originally by Plenisner, which seem to be lost, and the drawing that is now in the infobox may be one of those. No other drawings of actual specimens seem to exist, and none were drawn by Steller himself. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The caption does say "thought to be". Also, his full name is Friedrich Plenisner, right? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems so. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added section on illustrations User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why the media appearances are not listed chronologically?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The old illustrations should have dates in their captions to show their historical context.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a clear close up of the skull, such as this[3], should be shown.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonomy section could describe the circumstances around the discovery in more detail, and explain the meaning of the scientific names. There also seem to be many unexplained synonyms. On what basis were they named?

The circumstances? They got shipwrecked. this link has a lot of info but I'm not sure exactly what is relevant. Should I talk about their first sea cow hunt?

Seems like a relevant addition. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added to the Extinction and sightings section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything on the meaning of the scientific names? FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anyone who says what "Hydrodamalis" means but "gigas" is Latin for "giant" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the intro begin with "the"? Glancing at the sources, few if any say "the Steller's sea cow", but you use it throughout the article. We should follow the majority of the sources.

Some people use it, some people don't. Since it starts with the name of a person, it could go either way, and I think it's alright. Do you still want me to continue? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should always do what the majority of sources do, so it comes down to that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the article body should mention the full name, not just "the sea cow".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence reads "The Steller's sea cow grew to at least 8 to 9 m (26 to 30 ft) in length as an adult" I think that this wording doesn't work grammatically and is awkward prose. Something can't grow to 'at least' a range of sizes. 'at least 9 m' or 'sea cow grew 8 to 9 m in length' could work, or some other wording, but the current wording is not good I think. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

changed to "...grew to be 8 to 9 m..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk

Seems there has been a lot of good expansion of the article during the last few days, so I'll continue reviewing soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Terms like rostrum, papillae, and canthi could be explained. "Epoch" could be added after terms like Holocene.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They had a large genioglossus, the muscle responsible for sticking out the tongue." Why not group this info with the rest of the text about the tongue further down?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the lack of fingers, this blog post hints at some papers that discuss this: http://caribbeanpaleobiology.blogspot.dk/2011/06/hand-of-stellers-sea-cow-revisited.html

added a sentence User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a gallery of largely repetitive or unrelated images is needed, per WP:Galleries. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the ones that aren't talked about in the article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The group also attacked the boat " How does a sea cow attack?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"exhibited childcare." Parental care would be a less anthropomorphic way to say it.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of behavioural info in the description section. I'd recommend renaming the ecology section "Ecology and behaviour" or some such, and moving the info there, as in most other animal articles.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the tail fluke was bilobed, which could be mentioned.

I said "forked" which is a synonym User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it in the article, though? FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oops, added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the Dusisiren" Genus names do not need definite articles.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" In 1811, naturalist Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger placed Steller's sea cow under the genus Rytina, which many writers at the time adopted. However, the animal had already been classified long before this. Zoologist Eberhard August Wilhelm von Zimmermann had described its specific name as gigas in 1780, but placed it in the genus Manati. Biologist Anders Jahan Retzius placed it under the genus Hydrodamalis, 17 years before Illiger had described the sea cow as Rytina. He, however, described its specific name as stelleri, as Steller was the first person to describe it.[4] The name Hydrodamalis gigas was first used in 1895 by Theodore Sherman Palmer.[1]" What's the point of summarising this history in the wrong order? You should describe it in chronological order, otherwise it will be needlessly confusing to readers.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This may be due to unidentifiable remains" Wording seems strange. Due to the remains being unidentifiable?

changed to, "wrongly-identified remains" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"many large bones during this time period, from which complete skeletons were erected." I assume you mean these bones belonged to different individuals, but were used to make complete skeletons? Could be stated more clearly then.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to order the illustrations in the gallery after the order they are discussed in the text.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Their range at the time of their discovery" I think you need to name the subject in the beginning of a new section, "their" is too vague.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found an online version of Stejneger's book about Steller's voyage[4], perhaps there is something useful that could be added. In any case, it contains a now public domain reconstruction of Steller dissecting a sea cow, which I have added, as I think is relevant enough (mentioned here[5]). FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would right align the photo of the sea otter, since it is recommended that subjects face the text, and then it would not clash with the section header under it.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the range section again, I still think the late survival claim by Turner is way too unreliable to have in a section that should reflect scientific consensus, not speculation. There must be a reason why the IUCN accepts an earlier extinction date, and we should reflect the consensus view here. All speculation on survival past 1768 should be placed under sightings. Furthermore, it is already mentioned earlier in the section that the sea cow existed around the Near Islands, so the Turner sentence doesn't add anything at all about the range, and therefore doesn't belong in that section, regardless of how reliable it is.

moved User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would further suggest that you don't muddle up the info on the accepted extinction events with that about later sightings, and instead give later sightings their own header ("possible" or "claimed" sightings, to make it clear). See for example the similar section[6] in woolly mammoth. It is very important that we don't mix accepted views with fringe views haphazardly.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The first fossils discovered outside the Commander Islands were interglacial Pleistocene deposits in Amchitka" Deposits are not fossils, so you need to add "were found in".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated below, you need sources that specifically say the sea cows mentioned by Kipling and Verne are Steller's sea cows, otherwise it is OR. The way different sources are put together to support a claim not stated in either one them (as with the Verne manatee) is WP:Original synthesis.

removed Verne's, but Kipling specifically says "Sea Cow" and it takes places in the Bering Sea User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added ref for Jungle Books that specifically says "Steller's sea cow" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should give years of publication for all the pop culture entries, for some reason you only give it for two.

I'm not citing the book, I'm citing the review/summary (where it actually explicitly analyses it) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in-text dates for when the books mentioned were published, not the sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sourcing expert, but this doesn't look right at all for a book citation: "Species Evanescens (Russian Edition). Amazon.com. ASIN 9079625027."

it's not a book, it's the amazon summary that somewhat analyses the book User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't see a compelling reason why the pop culture section is even needed. Apart form the documentary, none of the entries are even about the sea cow, but only briefly mentions them. But I won't push for removal unless others do.
Again, there are still text under description which is not about physical description, but behaviour and ecology, such as "The forelimbs, according to Steller, were used as a sort of holdfast to anchor itself down to prevent being swept away by the strong nearshore waves around their habitat." and "Their large size was probably an adaptation to reduce their surface-area-to-volume ratio and conserve heat. Based on the larger average size of Pleistocene specimens from the Aleutian Islands, it has been hypothesized that the growth of Commander Island sea cows was stunted due to the marginalized environment with a less favorable habitat than the warmer Aleutian Islands."

moved User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"make great material" Sounds like a commercial, not like a neutral account. You could sya the bones are "well suited" or some such.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why the text udner "Commercial value" isn't chronological? You start by mentioning uses today, then jump back to the 1700s, and then forwards to the 1800s. It is especially puzzling, since the last paragraph about skeletons in museums seems very fitting right before the text about use of the bones today.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section could be pruned, some of the sites there are already used as sources in the article body, and other sites have no information not found in the article.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would put "Portrayals in media" last, it makes more chronological sense.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"When the crew of the Great Northern Expedition were stranded on Bering Island, they hunted Steller's sea cow with relative ease; because of their large size, the challenge was hauling the animal back to shore. Their success inspired maritime fur traders on their North Pacific expeditions to stop by the Commander Islands and restock their food supply by hunting sea cows" Isn't this pretty much the same information as in the preceding sentences? If so, should be merged.

The success of Bering's crew in sea cow hunting attracted hungry fur traders who were hunting sea otters in the North Pacific User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"sea urchins would have increased and reduced availability of kelp" How? I assume they eat the kelp?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should state specifically in the article that 1768 is the widely accepted extinction date.

It says "By 1768... Steller's sea cow was extinct" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It was also hunted for its valuable subcutaneous fat, which was not only used for food (usually as a butter substitute), but also for oil lamps because it did not give off any smoke or odor and could be kept for a long time in warm weather without spoiling." This info is repeated again in the commercial value section.

removed the purposes of the fat User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"and probably belong to an arctic cetacean" Singular would imply it was bones of a single species of whale, plural would be better.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the book under further reading used as a source?

it is User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the further reading section is redundant. It is for publications not used as citations. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any remains left from the sea cows killed in historical times? Brought home by people who had actually killed them? Or have they all just been found as bones?

found as bones as far as I know User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"that was found exclusively around the Commander Islands" The article suggests they were found more widely.

added "at the time of their discovery" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk

I think there could be a bit more general physical description and behaviour info in the intro.

is it good now or should I keep going? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes myself, but when the points above are fixed, I'll be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems there are two points left, then I can support. Better make them quick, before this is archived by a coordinator. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done. Sorry it took so long, the flu's been going around User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem for me personally (if this was a GAN, we could go on indefinitely), but FAC articles get archived if they have no supports after some time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this looks comprehensive to me now, and the structure makes more sense. I'd remove the further reading section if the book listed is also used as a source, but that's about it. Good to see this animal get some attention! FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

Looks like a decent article, good job on getting it thus far. However, I think there are a good many prose issues, which force me to oppose until they are resolved. Vanamonde (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Any other comments? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, but there are two issues: about singular/plural with respect to the animal and the phylogeny; which are still to be addressed. Vanamonde (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all but two of my specific issues have now been addressed, but the issue with the phylogeny suggests to me that there might be other issues of source misinterpretation. Thus I am not willing to support this in the absence of a source review that does spot checks. At the moment I do not have the time to do this, but I might at some point in the future: and this will require a source review to pass in any case, so I do not think I am unfairly holding this up. Vanamonde (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Ealdgyth did a source review. Do you have any other comments? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

~~"the Commander Islands, which is situated" shouldn't it be "are"?~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"which is the sole surviving member of the Dugongidae of which Steller's sea cow was also a part of." missing commas, and also some redundancy~~

added a comma after "Dugongidae" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~'had a much thicker epidermis than other sirenians in response" Seems like odd wording; how about "than other sirenians, which they evolved in response"~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Like other sirenians, they probably cared for their young." Other sirenians don't "probably" care for their young: the ones we know of definitely do.~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Georg Wilhelm Steller had discovered Steller's sea cow along with the Commander Islands in 1741 on Vitus Bering's Great Northern Expedition where they were shipwrecked, and much of what is known about the sea cow in life comes from Steller's account on the island documented in his posthumous publication "The Beasts of the Sea"." This is a massive run-on sentence, and also seems ungrammatical: an expedition is a singular, not a plural.

pretty sure it's not a run-on, "they" refers to the crew of the expedition, and it's grammatically correct User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if correct, strictly speaking, it does not flow well, and is difficult to understand. Please break it up. Also, plural would only be correct if you introduced "members of the expedition" at some point.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"though there were sightings proceeding 1768." What does "proceeding 1768" mean? I think "preceding" is what you intend: in which case, it is redundant with the earlier fragment~~

"proceeding" basically means "continuing past/through/etc." and "after," and it was intentional User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, perhaps correct, but I would prefer a more widely used phrasing.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"They feature a role in various media" clearer as "are feutured in various media"~~

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Description

~~"Their large size was probably to reduce" odd phrasing: I'd suggest "...size was an adaptation to reduce..."~~

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~The lede mentions the epidermis as an adaptation to cold, this section as an adaptation to abrasion; why the difference?~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Unlike other sirenians, Steller's sea cow was positively buoyant, meaning they could not completely submerge. " Singular vs plural~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there no information available about sexual dimorphism, or lack thereof?~~

nope User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology and behavior

~~"They may have also fed on seagrasses, but this could not have been a main food source" should be these seagrasses.~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned above, the article keeps switching between referring to the sea cow in the singular and the plural. I think either is fine, as as long as it is consistent.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, there are several remaining.

~~"although they could have been born year-round" the "could have" here is confusing. Did he actually say he saw calves being born year round, or only that he has no evidence that they are not?~~

"The young are born at any time of year, but most frequently in autumn, as I judged from the new-born little ones that I saw about that time" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So say it as he does.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

~~"It most likely went extinct" better to specify what went extinct, for clarity~~

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm reading something very wrong, the text and the phylogeny are saying different things. The phylogeny shows Steller's sea cow as the more basal lineage, and the Cuesta sea cow as the more derived.

the cladogram says H. cuestae and H. spissa are more closely related to each other than to H. gigas User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've fixed that error, thanks; but I checked the source, and the depiction of the Dusisiren is different in Furusawa's paper than here. Why is that?

that's basically the cladogram version of the phylogenetic tree, I just lumped all the Dusisiren together instead of making individual branches for each one. Same basic idea's conveyed here User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree. The source shows the dusisiren as a paraphyletic taxon, and suggests that H. Gigas and some dusisiren are actually more closely related than the dusisiren are to each other. This is a fundamental difference from the source. Vanamonde (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~" no osteological evidence of the existence of Steller's sea cow, that is skeletal remains" probably clearer as "no osteological evidence, or skeletal remains, of the existence of Steller's sea cow.."~~

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is a reference in this section to possible differences in the appearance of juveniles, but no mention of this in the description~~

The source says the drawing looks like a West Indian manatee calf which has those folds User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's what the text should say; it is OR to suggest that it looks like a juvenile Steller's sea cow.

"According to the proportions of the body it might represent a juvenile...for comparison the picture of a baby manatee [picture of a baby manatee above]...probably however this is, as Heptner believed, a 'heavily distorted' copy" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Range

"Their range at the time of their discovery was apparently restricted to the Commander Islands, which consists mainly of Bering Island and Copper Island," "consists mainly" is strange phrasing: "of which the prominent members are" might be better.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Additionally, it's probably best to be explicit that the range was the shallow seas off the coast of these islands: if I'm not mistaken, often quite far off the coast.~~

changed to "...restricted to the shallow seas around the Commander Islands..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"remains of three individuals were preserved" should be either "are preserved" or "were found preserved"~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extinction and sightings

I'm a little dissatisfied with the ordering of content in this section. The logical sequence would be "Indigenous hunting - first attempts at hunting by Europeans - Commercial hunting - extinction, possible later sightings - analysis"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial value

"Steller's sea cow bones are being sold commercially, however they probably do not actually belong to a Steller's sea cow specimen, more likely an arctic cetacean." Confusing sentence. Would suggest "Steller's sea cow bones are sold commercially today; however, these are highly unlikely to be genuine, and are probably those of an arctic cetacean."

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Suggest "As the animal is extinct" in the next sentence.~~

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Portrayals in the media

I'm a little dissatisfied with the first two paragraphs of this section, as they seem to be borderline original research. The media in question obviously do not make the connection to Stellers' sea cow specifically; but do the sources do so? If the sources are also only mentioning a generic sea cow, then I'm afraid these paragraphs need to go. Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a ref for the Jungle Books one that specifically says "Steller's sea cow", and removed Vernes User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think the use of Amazon as a source is inappropriate. Given the context, using the work in question as a source should be okay; or you should find a reliable secondary source.~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other

If you are using a books as a source, it should not be labelled "further reading".

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a couple of days. I'll copyedit as I go -- please revert if I screw anything up.

~~You give two different definitions for "papillae" in the "Description" section.~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"15,160 centimetres (5,968 in)": this is from a 1751 source? I think it would be better to convert these numbers into metres and feet.~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"the Takikawa sea cow and Steller's sea cow are more derived than to Cuesta sea cow": "derived than to" looks like a typo of some kind.~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"preserved in the South Bight Formation of Amchitka, a rare occurrence": what's the basis for "a rare occurrence"? I looked at the source and couldn't find anything to support, but I also noticed you don't have a page range on that reference (Whitmore & Gard).

"The South Bight exposure ... is a rare occurrence of late Pleistocene interglacial deposits in the Aleutians; the abundance of Hydrodamalis gigas in this limited exposure suggests that the species may have been widely distributed in the Aleutians at that time." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear what it was that was rare, so I've expanded this a little; I think that does it if you're OK with the edit. You still need to add the page reference to the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"so it is much more likely that the animal died between 1710 and 1785": I think this is too strong a statement given that the source also says "all that can be said for certain is that the rib from Kiska is less than 1,000 yr old". Mention of the date range of 1710-1785 is fine, since they say that in the source, but the caveat needs to be stronger.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded this, as you'd taken the text almost straight from the source, which is not allowed per WP:PARAPHRASE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This population may have also had confrontations with humans": "confrontations" doesn't seem like the right word, since the aggression was presumably all one way. Do you mean "wiped out by" or "driven to extinction by", or something similar?

changed it to "interactions" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through again:

"the ancestors of Dusisiren were associated with tropical mangroves, and adapted to the cold climates of the North Pacific and to consuming kelp": I assume this is meant to indicate a sequence, so perhaps make this "and subsequently adapted", as otherwise it's not immediately clear.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the page number fix above. Once those two points are fixed I'll support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took the page numbers back out of the Whitmore citation, after asking elsewhere how this situation is usually handled. At Broad-billed parrot, for example, the reference Hume 2007 is 76 pages long, which is too much for a reader to search through for a citation, so for that reference short form citations were used to point directly at the pages cited. For the shorter articles this wasn't done. Personally I'd prefer to see every citation supported by a page ref directly to the pages the reader would need to see, but that's not a FAC requirement. For Whitmore, since you're using it to support multiple facts, it's not appropriate to put in the page numbers, and that's why I deleted them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's for book refs. Whitmore is a journal User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Vanamonde93, have you had a chance to look at this again? I think you wanted someone to look at the sources, and I believe Mike Christie did so in his review above. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a couple, but I don't think I would claim I've done a full source review; I certainly didn't verify formatting. However, I did a couple of spotchecks in following up one or two of the questions I had. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was the spot checks that I was thinking of rather than the formatting. A source review could be requested at WT:FAC as we will need one anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jens Lallensack

I just started reading and will add comments below as I go

Lead

There are some termini which should be linked, such as blubber, bristles, kelp
As opposed to teeth, it had an array of white bristles, – I think this could be clearer. Where are the bristles located, and what are they used for? Perhaps better "instead of teeth" than "opposed to teeth"?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph has many short sentences starting with "It". Perhaps add more prose?

merged some sentences User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Wilhelm Steller discovered Steller's sea cow – I would add "Naturalist Georg Wilhelm Steller" or something similar, such information is very useful for the reader.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

much larger than the extant sirenians of today; – a tautology, since extant and today mean the same.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the mouth are the bristles and keratinous plates located? And how many keratinous plates?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The small eyes were parallel to the nostrils, halfway between them and the ears – I don't understand this sentence.

fixed? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it used sphincters – Sphincters is linked, but the linked article does not explain the term (?), perhaps add a short explanation?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

link "irises" and "sea otters"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its tongue was rough with short lingual papillae, small structures on the tongue that give it texture – I don't get the point here yet (I mean, what does this tell me?), what does it mean that the papillae are short, are they shorter than in other sirenians?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

larger on the vertebral side and narrower towards the neck – with "vertebral side", are you referring to "posterior"? This sounds like "medial" to me.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deltoid tuberosity, the part of the humerus that is attached to the deltoid muscle, was large and shield-shaped. – Any inferences? Are the fins more powerful than in other sirenians because of a larger muscle?

not that I can see. Should I just delete it? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and on the proximal end of the anterior side of the radius was a tuberosity which connected to the brachialis muscle – Now you start using anatomical terminology (which is not linked), it would be better to use more common terms here. Hm, you give very specific detail here; imho it would be better to point out why this information is notable.

the source never mentions any inferences. Should I just delete it? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments will follow tomorrow. It appears to be a interesting, well-researched article. So far I see two general problems:
- Language and Prose; understanding the article is sometimes not as easy as it should be, at least for me (I am not a native speaker though).
- Detail. Of course, I don't have a general objection against detail, but if you state something like "on the proximal end of the anterior side of the radius was a tuberosity which connected to the brachialis muscle", you should also add why this specific information is notable. Without this information ("this is important why …") the reader will not have a chance to learn something from it, and might get the impression that he is flooded with unnecessary, unimportant and random detail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The heart of Steller's sea cow was detached from all sides, and enveloped in a loose pericardium which formed a cavity in the thorax; so, instead of facing perpendicularly, it made an oblique angle to the back. The base of the heart was surrounded by a 1.3-centimetre (1⁄2 in) layer of fat. The pericardium was fastened to the inner wall of the diaphragm. The lungs were white and extended from the chest cavity into the abdominal cavity. They were encased in a thick membrane and were, like the heart, detached. The liver had three lobes, one of which was small, anvil-shaped, and situated between the other two lobes. It was encased in a fibrous membrane. The gallbladder was absent, but it did have a common bile duct. The kidneys were large, measuring 81 centimetres (32 in) in length and 46 centimetres (18 in) in width. The stomach was also large, measuring 1.8 metres (6 ft) long and 1.5 metres (5 ft) wide. The entirety of the intestinal tract was 151 metres (500 ft) long.[11] – I feel a bit uneasy about this whole paragraph. Again, a lot of detail, and the question if everything is notable enough. But what bothers me the most: This is based on the original historical account of Seller himself, from 1751. I do not want to say that this information is flawed, but basing a biological description on such a historical account is close to original research, since the content has to be translated into the modern biological context. And you have to decide yourself which parts of this information are notable in this modern context. For example, you elaborate which organs are detached, but is this observation even specific for the species, or rather a common trait in mammals (if so, the information would be worth nothing here)? In my opinion, it would be much better not to use the historical source directly, and instead rely on recent scientific reviews of these historical sources (e.g. Forsten and Youngman 1982, which is not cited in the article yet).
so delete it? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deleted User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for jumping in; Dunkleosteus77, I can send you a PDF of Forsten and Youngman if you send me a Wikipedia email. I think the issue is not so much about deleting this particular description; it's about using the most current sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you got a link instead? Or maybe a link to an abstract? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the detail: The two things mentioned above (deltoid tuberosity, and radius tuberosity), yes, I really would remove this. It just does not help anybody. Other details you give however are absolutely fun, and I really don't want to see them removed. The problem is that the selection of this information appears arbitrary. For example, you give the color of both the iris and the eyeball, but you do not mention the body color of the animal itself, which would be a much more important thing to know?

I don't see where he explicitly states the colour of the animal. Should I delete the eye part? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removed part about deltoids User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot continue reviewing before Friday, unfortunately. I would be interested to make some additions/changes myself, if you would be fine with this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

okay User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Dusisiren, the sister taxon of Steller's sea cow and other hydrodamalines, had reduced phalanges (finger bones), it is possible that Steller's sea cow did not have a manus. – I am confused, I thought Hydrodamalines would include Dusisiren, or is the article Hydrodamalinae incorrect?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steller noted that it grew thin during the frigid winters, indicating a period of fasting. – Does this mean that it willingly abstained from eating (as "fasting" would imply)? Or is this because food is not accessible?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much like Steller's sea cow, the ancestors of Dusisiren were associated with tropical mangroves – Does this sentence lack a "those" ("Much like those of Steller's sea cow")?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeny section: Since you are mentioning hydrodamalines later, you should introduce this group also. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added a brief sentence User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The range of Steller's sea cow at the time of its discovery was apparently restricted to the shallow seas around the Commander Islands, which consist primarily of Bering Island and Copper Island,[28][27][9][11] and which remained uninhabited until the Russian-American Company relocated Aleuts from Attu Island and Atka Island to hunt sea otters. – The most important info here is not given: When does this happen?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

late Pleistocene interglacial deposits are rare in the Aleutians, so the discovery suggests that sea cows were abundant in this area during the Pleistocene. – You can't say "abundant" based on only three specimens.

late Pleistocene interglacial deposits are rare, so the discovery of even one specimen would indicate some level of abundance (and the source also draws the same conclusion) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dating may be skewed due to the marine reservoir effect; the large reserves of C14 in the oceans cause radiocarbon-dated marine creatures to appear much older than they actually are by several hundred years, but the size of the necessary correction is not know; it has been estimated to be between 450 and 1,000 years. – First I would suggest making two sentences out of it. Second, "it has been estimated to be between 450 and 1,000 years", do you mean the "size of the correction"? If you mean the fossil itself, you don't need to give to datings. I would suggest to shorten this info.

I made it less confusing User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This population may have also been hunted into extinction by humans.[27] – ~~Please specify: Driven into extinction by native or western people? Could be a bit more elaborated.~~ I see this is discussed below in "extinction". Then I would suggest just remove this sentence in section "Range".

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose (given the limited time remaining for this nomination) – as I'm still concerned with the quality of the article. Main concerns include the prose, the content (in some sections it still appears a bit as a collection of random information rather than a coherent buildup of information; a lot could be added to the description section), and the sources used. I also have to agree with Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) that the rothauscher website might not quality as a reliable source, and a lot of content in the article is based on it. Better use the original sources directly. But still, I think the article is almost there, on the edge of becoming FA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looks like rothauscher is a book. I fixed it. What could be added to the Description section? All that comes to mind is listing the size of random parts (like different bones and organs). For the record, the only thing said about bones (other than shape) is that they are huge; seriously, the only thing I can find is a bunch of statistics basically saying they're huge User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ealdgyth

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

What makes this a high quality reliable source?

it's well-sourced and I think it's either a book (Die Stellersche Seekuh) or a summary of that book ISBN 978-3-8370-1793-9 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it gives a list of references which are all German journal articles and books (but there are some in English) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looks like it's a book. I fixed it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 10 (Berta, Annalissa) does not have a place of publication, but the rest of your book sources do. Needs to be consistent.~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 11 (Stellar) - I cannot get the ISBN to work here -

I don't see the problem, it works for me User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added OCLC numbers User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 14 (Berta, Sumich, Kovacs) does not have a place of publication, but most of the rest of your books sources do. Needs to be consistent.~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 19 (Domning) - same as the two above.~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is ref 20 (Marsh, Helene) a book? If so, it needs a place of publication like most of the rest of your book sources.~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not required, but could we source "The range of Steller's sea cow at the time of its discovery was apparently restricted to the shallow seas around the Commander Islands, which consist primarily of Bering Island and Copper Island," to a slightly better source than the tertiary Brittanica.com?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and remove the Britannica source, as it's not really up to the standards of most of the rest of your sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 28 (MacDonald) ... needs a place of publication to conform to most of the rest of the book sources.~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ultra picky but ref 31 is actually from the Yale University Press, not "Yale University" - and it (you guessed it) needs a place of publication.~~

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a spot check of sources is needed, it'll have to be someone else, as I don't have access to most of these sources.

Except for the above quibbles, the sources all look to be of high quality and reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I think that finding more modern sources for the description would not be a bad thing (referring to the above discussion.) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments SUPPORT by Elmidae

edit: Article seems in fine shape now, and presents a concise and very readable summary of most of the salient data information we have about the species.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things I noticed:

Description: "Its large size was probably an adaptation to reduce its surface-area-to-volume ratio and conserve heat", in the first paragraph of the description section, links to Surface-area-to-volume ratio#Biology. While this is technically correct, it may be more helpful to link to the specifically biogeographical instantiation, Bergmann's rule, since as far as I know all adaptive interpretations of the sea cow's massive size have suggested this particular driver (heat conservation) rather than any of the others mentioned at the current link (nutrient exchange, buoyancy, etc.).

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description: In the second description paragraph, the length of the bristles is given in inches, converted to cm; all other measurements are given in cm, converted to inches. I assume that this is due to difference of usage in sources, but at least the length of the tongue is cited to the same source as the bristles (translation of Steller's original), so maybe a double check re "original" units might be good here.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeny: wikilink genus articles for Dusisiren and Hydrodamalis in text?

Those are already wikilinked in the Description section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Range: "One study in 2004 reported sea cow bones discovered in Adak Island and Buldir Island" => "on Adak Island and Buldir Island"

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Range: "This population may have also interacted with humans" strikes me a needlessly hedged. The cited article makes no bones about the suspected 'interaction', which was hunting to extinction. So maybe "This population may have also have been hunted to extinction by humans"?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction: Just checking - did Steller himself suggest that flooding might be a cause of mortality, or is that a later interpretation based on his report? The reference to the original report suggests the former, but I can't check (my net access is coming through a pinhole today).

he said in his journal that there was flooding and went on to explain User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potrayals in media: The double cite of the Kipling story to two separate editions of The Jungle Book seems a little odd, as text should be identical in both editions (Kipling gave none of these stories an overhaul for subsequent imprints).

one is the actual copy of the story, the second one is to verify that he is talking about a Steller's sea cow (because in the first one it just says "Sea Cow") User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, looking forward to its front page appearance :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"with crater-like bores most likely from ectoparasites". I do not think this is a correct use of "bore", which means a hole drilled in manufacturing. Maybe "depression"?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says that Steller's sea cow fed solely on kelp, but the main text that it was probably its main food soruce.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" It only ate the soft parts of the kelp, and consumed the tougher stem and holdfast when they washed up on shore in heaps." This is contradictory - it did and did not consume the tougher parts?

changed to "attacked" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It may have also fed on seagrass, but this did not occur in sufficient quantities to support a viable population, and so could not have been the main food source. Also, the available seagrasses in their range, Phyllospadix spp. and Zostera marina, were probably too tough or occurred too deep for Steller's sea cow to consume." This also seems contradictory - it may have fed on seagrass, but the evidence suggests that this was not possible. I would delete.

a lot of sources list seagrasses as an albeit small food source (the ones the talk about food anyways) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on the larger average size of Pleistocene specimens from the Aleutian Islands," This is a bit confusing as it is the first mention of the former Aleutian population. Perhaps "Fossils have been found of an Aleutian Islands population during the Pleistocene, and they are larger on average than the Commander Island sea cows,"

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow, but from what I have read so far I am inclined to oppose. The article cites a translation of Steller's original paper, even though the translator expresses doubt about its accuracy and it is an original source which is probably only accepted in part by modern researchers. An example is the statement that sea cows were monogamous. It is unclear how Steller could have known, and a statement that they were apparently monogamous in the main text becomes definite without the "apparently" in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

according to Steller, they lived in family groups (multiple sources concur that's what he said), with one male, one female, and their offspring; and basically everything known about Steller's sea cow behaviour comes from Beasts of the Sea User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for nearly two months now, and we have had a lot of commentary but we have two fresh leaning opposes, plus a remaining earlier oppose. Despite the support this article has received, I don't think we have a consensus that this meets the FA criteria, and the opposes are certainly valid ones. Therefore, I am archiving this nomination as I don't think we are close enough to promotion after a long time at FAC. This can be renominated after the usual two week wait, but I would suggest working on this away from FAC in that time with those who have made suggestions, and bring it back when the work has been done. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.