Talk:Sea mink

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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2017 [2].

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a species of mink that went extinct in the 1800s, and everything about its behavior and biology comes from skull fragments and stuff fur traders said   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased to see this here.

• "It was found on the New England coast and the Maritime Provinces, though its range may have stretched further south during the last glacial period. Conversely, its range may have been restricted to solely the New England coast, specifically the Gulf of Maine, or to just islands off of it." Perhaps you're a little too firm in the first sentence?

added "probably"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." If you mean the century, perhaps "the late 19th century" would be less ambiguous?

I always thought they were synonyms, is there any sort of difference between 1800s and 19th century?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Debate has occurred regarding whether the sea mink was its own species, or a subspecies of the American mink. Those who argue that the sea mink was a subspecies often refer to it as Neovison vison macrodon.[5][6]" I wouldn't start with this. I think starting with the initial description date would make more sense

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The second half of the paragraph (beginning at "Another study conducted in 2000") could do with some attention. It's a little repetitive, and I'm not really keen on "the study said".

I removed the use of the word "said" and I used the authors of the studies instead of just saying "the [year] study"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "refuted" is a little strong; unless we have a clear consensus in the literature that a particular claim has been refuted, I think "challenged" or something might be better.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pausing there, sorry- a little distracted... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts:

• Would it not be typical for the range section to go below the description section? Description often goes above taxonomy, as well, but I quite like a taxonomy section first.

I always do it Taxonomy --> Description --> Range --> Behavior, but in this particular case I felt that Range was sort of needed after Taxonomy if people got confused, and could easily reference it. Also I kept bringin up info about its range in the Description section, so it seemed necessary to have it beforehand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "914 millimetres (36 in) from head to tail, with the tail being 254 millimetres (10 in) long" What does your source say? I'm guessing 36 in and 10 in; if this is so, 914mm and 254mm is false precision.

It's in millimetres, I just set the sig figs to 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, then; sorry! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "a hybrid by a 1966 study" As before; you have also have a few references to "a 2000 study"

the 1966 study's only mentioned once, so I figure to just leave it as "1966 study," but I fixed all the repeating study mentions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was described as having course fur that was reddish-tan in color, though much of it was faded from age most likely." Are you talking about the mounted mink?

yeah, I made it more clear   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than American minks, such as the wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." This sentence is all over the place.

fixed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "and hard-bodied marine invertebrates like the American mink, though in greater proportions" The American mink is not a hard-bodied marine invertebrate!

I reworded it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "proceeding 1860" Surely you mean preceding? Or do you perhaps mean following?

no, I meant after 1860. Is "proceeding" not allowed?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't use it like that; I'd say "following" or simply "after". Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is there any sort of difference between 1800s and 19th century? ...No... There isn't. This suggestion is confusing. TimothyJosephWood 18:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The 1800s" is ambiguous between the decade at the start of the 19th century and the 19th century itself. Thus, the phrase "became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." is ambiguous between "became extinct some time around 1808-9" and "and became extinct sometime around 1880-99". Is this clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have always referred to 1800-1899 as the 1800s, also I find 19th century confuses some people because they might confuse it with the 1900s, but I'll do it if you insist   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File Herring Cove (10105704513).jpg misses ALT text.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The Canadian field-naturalist (1988) (20332897078).jpg needs a copyright tag.

it looks like it has all the right licensing displayed already   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad, I thought we should have had a CC there, but I guess it is fine. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great otherwise! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. I bring no special biological expertise to the article, but I have a few suggestions about the prose.

Lede

• ¶1 "The justification for it being its own species is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur." – Slightly smoother might be "The main justification for a separate-species designation is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur."
• ¶1 "Likewise, its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains." – Delete "Likewise"?
• ¶2 "or to just islands off of it." – Trim to "or to nearby islands"?
• ¶2 "As it was the largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders than other mink species, and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." – Trim and smooth? Suggestion: "Largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s."
• ¶2 "in the late 1800s" – This claim matches the lede but does not match the claim in the final section of the article.

Taxonomy and etymology

• ¶1 "The skull fragments used to first describe it were recovered from Native American shell middens in New England like most remains of the sea mink, however a complete specimen does not exist. Most remains are skull fragments as well." – The claim "does not exist" makes the assumption that no one can ever find one. I would also smooth this a bit. Suggestion: "Prentis based his description on skull fragments recovered from Native American shell middens in New England. Most sea mink remains, nearly all of them skull fragments, have come from middens, but a complete specimen has never been found."
• ¶2 Link paleontology?
• ¶2 "Furthermore, Graham reported that Mead et al. assumed..." – I wonder if it's strictly necessary to repeat the "et al."?
• ¶3 "The sea mink had various names given to it by the fur traders who hunted it, including: the water marten, the red otter, and the fisher cat." – Flip to active voice and trim? Suggestion: "Fur traders who hunted it gave the sea mink various names, including water marten, red otter, and fisher cat."

Range

• Since you link Massachusetts, you should probably link Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Nova Scotia.
• ¶2 "Mead et. al concluded..." – Maybe drop the "et al."?
• ¶2 "Alternately, the sea mink may have just evolved after the last glacial period in order to occupy a new niche." – The phrase "in order to" suggests that the mink evolved thoughtfully. Suggestion: "Alternately, the sea mink may have evolved after the last glacial period and filled a new ecological niche."

Description

• ¶1 "...though its relatives and descriptions given by fur traders and Native Americans give a general idea of what this animal looked like and its ecological roles." – Smooth a bit? Suggestion: "though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles."
• ¶2 "...however this was found to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid by a 1966 study." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "...however, a 1996 study found this to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid."
• ¶4 "Mead et al. that concluded that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism." – This refers obliquely to a report in a way that is not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "Mead et al., concluding that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands, suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism."
• ¶4 Maybe drop the "et al." here too?
• ¶4 "The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than the American mink, as they had wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." – Tighten to "The sea mink's wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades suggest that they crushed hard shells more often than did the teeth of the American mink."?

Exploitation and extinction

• ¶1 "eventually led to their extinction, which is thought to have occurred anywhere from 1860 to 1920." – The lede says "late 1800s." They shouldn't be contradictory.
• ¶1 "using an iron rod with a screw on the other end" – Would "the far end" make this more clear?

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed all the above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. That's what I call a quick turnaround. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. I enjoyed reading this. Finetooth (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some inconsistencies in capitalization style: some refs use title case, others do not.

I'm not really sure what a title case is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just realized this is still an issue. See [3]. Essentially, you have "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference", but "Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates". You should make this consistent. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes scotcat.com a reliable source?

The author is part of the Catfish Study Group which is a journal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Other sources are either high-quality scholarly sources, books from reliable publishers, or what appear to be reliable natural history publications.
• Earwig's tool does not flag anything of substance. I googled a few randomly selected sentences, and found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors.
• I performed a spot check on the source used for the phylogeny; the source supports the content.
• I also spotchecked the Manville 1966 source. I have some minor concerns with its use:

• "Its closest relative is the common mink (N. v. mink), which also inhabits the New England area." is cited to Manville. N.v mink is a subspecies of the American mink, Neovison vison. Therefore, unless N.v. is a polyphyletic taxon, this sentence makes little sense. If it is a polyphyletic taxon, then we need a source to say so. Overall, I'd say the claim here is doubtful, and should at least be attributed in the text.

It's saying that the closest mink subspecies to the sea mink is the common mink, not that the common mink's its own species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I mean: if the sea mink were its own species, then it cannot, by definition, be more closely related to one subspecies (N.v. mink) of another species (N.v.) than to other subspecies of the same species. This only makes sense in light of the source's conclusion that the sea mink was not its own species, and was also a subspecies of N.v.mink. So, you need to mention that, or remove that sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (Corrected, for the benefit of anybody reading later. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not certain how you derive "The sea mink was the largest of the minks. However, as only fragmentary skeletal remains of the sea mink exist, most of its external measurements are speculative and rely only on dental measurements." from the Manville source, though I may be missing something.

there're a couple of other sources lined up there, the Sealfon one says that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "and the carnassial teeth make a more acute angle" Not an error, as such, but should specify angle with what.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Remains of toad sculpins, ocean pout, and garden banded snails were the most common around their dens." That's not quite what the source says: the snails are reported as part of their diet, but not because of their presence on middens.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, not necessarily an error: the source reports the fish eaten as "horned pout (probably Macrozoarces americanus)" which appears to be a mismatch between common name (which, on WP, redirects to Brown bullhead) and the scientific name (which, presumably, you used to link to ocean pout.

Yeah, common names change but the scientific name is generally the one you wanna trust with species identification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I missed something, but where does Manville specifically say "however, these kills are speculated to be of large American minks."?

oops, it's only for the 1894 kill. Manville's describing the specimen collected in 1894, and at the end concluded that it's an American mink   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are relying so heavily upon Manville, it's probably worth mentioning his conclusion that the Sea mink is a subspecies of the American mink. This would also help resolve my first point.

• That's all I have for now. If I find the time, I may check the other source, too. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks okay now. If I have more time, I may do another spot check, but I don't think that should be required for promotion. A general note: Dunkleosteus, you do fine work with neglected marine mammals, but this is the second time in two reviews that I have flagged issues with interpreting phylogeny. May I ask that you be a little more careful in the future, and possibly ask for advice before somebody flags it at FAC? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now......

• Add descriptor of who/what Prentiss was.

I just added a wikilink to his wikisource page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant describe him...like, "American doctor and naturalist" or something similar before the first mention of his name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• last 2 sentences of first para of Taxonomy and etymology section repetitive....? Streamline?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok this segment: The sea mink was hunted to extinction before it was formally described by scientists. Subsequently, its external appearances and behaviors are not well-documented, though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles. - has unnecessary emphasis as you've already told us (twice) that it has become extinct. Hence, it should be something like "As it vanished before it was formally described by scientists, its (external) appearance and behaviors are not well-documented. However, descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, as well as the physique/morphology of its relatives, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological role. (note also that "external" is redundant, and appearance should be singular).

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to mention that it was hunted to extinction again as you did so in the previous section. It comes across as laboured otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand why you've chosen millimetres rather than centimetres (I think most laypeople think in the latter as default measurement)

the source gave it in mm so I just did it but I changed it to cm   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The last recorded kill of a sea mink was made in Maine made in 1880 near Jonesport, and the last known kill was made in Campobello Island in New Brunswick in 1894 - I don't understand the distinction between "last recorded" and "last known"

there isn't I was just worried about repetition, but I can change it if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case if you want to include both you could say, "the last two reported kills were..." or somesuch. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Exploitation and extinction I'd flip the material in the first para, so that methods of killing come before last killings and vanishing.

I just ordered it in level of importance, people're gonna wanna know when they died out before how they died out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it sounds funny as it sounds like the hunters are trying to kill them...when they are all already dead....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can split it off into a different paragraph if that'll make it better, but I've always layered it thematically because the reader's most likely looking for a time of extinction, and they're not gonna want to sort through a wall of text on killing minks to get there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't help. I think I am not so opposed to it to make it a deal-breaker..so I can agree to disagree on that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can't see anything else jumping out at me prose-wise nor can I see anything missing..so a tentative support from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this looked good when I GA reviewed it, and it has obviously been improved, so here's my support to get things going. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 21:23, 5 October 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.