Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Narwhal/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2024 [1].

Narwhal edit

Nominator(s): 20 upper (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the narwhal, or as it's sometimes known, the unicorn of the sea. With a tusk protruding out of its head, the narwhal is one of the strangest beasts I know of. Narwhals are notoriously hard to study in the wild, which could have implications for the protection and survival of the species. Special thanks to RoySmith and LittleJerry. 20 upper (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference: Wikipedia:Peer review/Narwhal/archive1

Image review

  • Alt texts shouldn't duplicate captions
  • The charts are not really legible at the displayed size - suggest scaling up
  • File:Narwal_brehm.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death
  • File:Нарвал_в_российской_Арктике.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Narwhal_size.svg: from what source is the data underlying this image? Ditto File:Narwhal_distribution_map.png
  • File:White_Whale_Narwhal_150.JPG: source link is dead, and because this is on Commons it also needs a tag for status in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: I didn't duplicate any caption. File:Odobenocetops_BW.jpg seems legit to me; I don't know if it went through a paleoart review. File:Narwhal_size.svg is own work, and I'm planning to replace File:Narwhal_distribution_map.png. For File:White_Whale_Narwhal_150.JPG, what tag are you talking about? I'm not good at these things. File:Нарвал_в_российской_Арктике.jpg is the lead image, might have to replace it. 20 upper (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Odobenocetops_BW.jpg is a user-generated image without associated supportive sourcing - on what basis does it seem legit?
  • File:Narwhal_size.svg is own work, but presents a real-world assertion of the relative sizes of what it shows - on what is that based?
  • To be hosted on Commons, an image has to be free/PD in both the US and its country of origin. The image currently has a tag for US status, but is missing one for UK status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa edit

I'll see if I find the time to do a more thorough review. For now, I'll say that the second half of the "Cultural depictions" section lacks proper sourcing, relying improperly on WP:Primary sources. Do sources on narwhals (or the cultural depictions thereof) bring up these examples? TompaDompa (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Are you free? I've completed UC's list below. 20 upper (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not right now, I'm afraid. I have a few other things that I need to prioritize first. TompaDompa (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UC edit

As ever, my admiration for anyone committed enough to bring a big, visible article here -- never an easy task. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • The tusks were used to make cups that were thought to negate any poison that may have been slipped into the drink: not sure about the Warwick Castle website as a WP:HQRS for this one (I can just wear it for the next bit, but would really appreciate a secondary source to establish notability).
  • The tusk grows throughout its life: "throughout the animal's life", or similar.
    • Done
  • Some biologists suggest that narwhals use their tusks in fights, while others agree that their tusks may be of use in breaking sea ice or in finding food: agree isn't the right word here ("argue", "believe" or similar). Do these people disagree with each other? It strikes me that these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.
    • Fixed
  • Detailed analysis reveals that: a bit WP:PUFFERY for me: I would simply cut.
    • Removed
  • Martin Nweeia suggested in his 2014 paper, that: no comma here in English. In a 2014 paper is more usual, or simply in 2014.
    • Fixed
  • which vary in morphology and histology: not common words: "in shape and material"?
    • Done
  • drone videos of narwhals surface-feeding in Tremblay Sound, Nunavut showed: per MOS:GEOCOMMA, comma after Nunavut.
    • Done
  • they tend do dive deep: typo: tend to.
    • Fixed
  • inspite of the fact: typo: in spite of (or simply although).
    • Fixed
  • In winter, it feeds on demersal prey: we've been in the plural so far, so should stick to it.
    • Done
  • then sucking it with considerable force: do we need with considerable force? They would hardly use negligible force.
    • Fixed
  • Finley, et al, tested: per MOS:ABBREVIATIONS, vary to something like "A team led by K.J. Finley".
    • Changed
  • The main prey items: possibly specialist vocabulary, but items reads oddly to me: would simply cut to the main prey of.
    • Changed
  • When sexually matured, males are typically 3.95 m (13.0 ft) long, while females average 3.40 m (11.2 ft).: why are we repeating this in the "Breeding" section?
    • Removed
  • a thin layer of blubber which thicken: typo: thickens
    • Fixed
  • As in most toothed whales, narwhals use: as in isn't the right phrasing here: Like is better.
    • Done
  • The whole bit about how narwhals make sound is sourced to a PhD thesis. We generally say that PhDs are fine as WP:RS, so this isn't a major problem, but does a better source not exist? This doesn't sound like controversial or cutting-edge stuff, at least from outside the field.
    • Fixed
  • Whistles and throbs: add quote marks, as we've used them throughout, or drop them after first use.
    • Done
  • squeaking door sounds: needs a hyphen, and probably quotes (what a phrase!)
    • Done
  • suggesting the possibility of group or individual-specific calls : need suspended hyphens: group- or individual-specific...
    • Done
  • Narwhals may also adjust the duration and the pitch of their pulsed calls to maximise sound propagation in varying acoustic environments: the may is ambiguous here: it's unclear whether they only do this sometimes, or whether we're unsure if they do it at all. Would simply cut or amend to sometimes, or give a more detailed statement to the effect of "it has been suggested that..."
    • Done
  • beluga whistles may have a higher frequency range and more diversified whistle contours: again, what exactly does may mean here?
    • Fixed
  • Narwhals can live an average of 50 years: cut can: they do live an average of fifty, and can live longer.
    • Fixed
  • research using aspartic acid racemization from the lens of the eyes : for non-specialists, we should give some idea that this is an ageing technique.
    • Clarified
  • Mortality often occurs when the narwhals suffocate after they fail to leave before the surface of the Arctic waters freeze over in the late autumn: I'd give this one another look for clarity and general elegance.
    • Clarified
  • Breathing holes may be up to 1,450 m (4,760 ft) apart: I'd clarify that we mean holes in the ice, not holes in the narwhals.
    • Clarified
  • I'd link beluga whale.
  • The remains of an abnormal looking whale was discovered in West Greenland c. 1990. : MOS:ABBREVIATIONS has Most [abbreviations] should be replaced, in regular running text, by unabbreviated expansions or essentially synonymous plain English. Could we change the c. to "around"?
  • around 4.98 mya: I would spell out "million years ago" on first use: it's not a particularly common abbreviation outside specialist literature, and we're not short on space.
    • Done
  • Males average 4.1 m (13.5 ft); females, 3.5 m : add in length somewhere here.
    • Done
  • Does the weight of adults vary by sex, given that the length does?
    • Clarified
  • Male narwhals attain sexual maturity at 11 to 13 years of age, when they are 3.9 m (12.8 ft) long: precisely 3.9m?
    • Clarified
  • Females become sexually matured at a younger age: mature is better English here. Again, are they all precisely 3.4m long at the instant of maturity?
  • Females rarely grow tusks, which typically is smaller than a male tusk: needs another look for grammar.
    • Fixed
      • Not quite: the which doesn't have a clear antecedent, and the singular-plural agreement has gone wonky. Suggest Females rarely grow tusks: when they do, the tusks are typically smaller than male tusks, with less noticeable spirals. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the narwhal tusk is a sexual trait: I would rephrase this: it might have a specialist meaning for biologists, but to me it sounds like "is tied to whether the animal is male or female", and we knew that already.
    • Rephrased
  • At times, a bull narwhal may rub its tusk with another bull, a display known as "tusking" and thought to maintain social dominance hierarchies.: I thought we said, a few paragraphs ago, that this wasn't an aggressive thing, but rather about communicating about sea conditions?
    • Fixed thate
  • or innate adaptations between subpopulations: innate is a bit confusing here: genetic?
    • Fixed
  • to learn skills needed for survival during maturation when they stay within two body lengths of the mother: could be better phrased: do they learn the skills during maturation, or need them for survival during maturation?
    • Clarified
  • The species is thought to go through menopause, however, even during this phase, females may continue to take care of calves in the pod: not sure about the however and even: isn't it fairly normal in intelligent mammals for grandmothers etc to help care for the young?
    • Done
  • indicates the hybrid hunted on the seabed, much as walruses do, indicating...: can we do something about the repetition here?
    • Fixed
      • much as walruses do, which are different from those of either parent species: the fix is no longer grammatical, I'm afraid. Probably best to start a new sentence after do. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More information is needed to determine the vulnerability of narwhals to sea ice changes. this would be in place in a write-up of a study, but should be phrased a little differently for an encyclopaedia ("it is currently unclear how far sea ice changes pose a danger to narwhals"?)
    • Added
  • and rose again since 1999: don't link years, per MOS:OVERLINK. Tense better as "have risen".
    • Fixed
  • The narwhal is considered to be a Least-concern species: decap least.
    • Decapped
      • Pedantry: it's a least-concern species (hyphen), but listed as least concern (no hyphen): this is the "compound modifiers" bit of MOS:HYPHEN. 17:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
        • Fixed this time 20 upper (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • This seems to be backwards, at least as I'm reading it? I see is considered to be a least concern species (not hyphenated, but should be) and The narwhal is listed as least-concern (hyphenated, but shouldn't be). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narwhals normally congregate in groups of about five to ten and sometimes up to 20 individuals outside the summer: per MOS:NUM, best to put all of these into figures or words. I'm a little unclear on the significance of "outside the summer" at the moment. Suggest something like "outside the summer, these groups normally consist of..."
    • Fixed
      • On reflection, this is still a bit clunky, and we could do without the outside the summer: we've established what's normal here, and then the next sentence gives an exception to that rule (summertime). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed 20 upper (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've made a small CE here -- as the sentence is effectively restarting at the "and", we need dashes. I've used unspaced emdashes: you'll want to make the style consistent across the article (so either change the earlier unspaced dashes to ems or space both sets and change to endashes). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK; done. 20 upper (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unusual dentition seen in the single remaining skull: this needs a bit of explanation. Why is there only one skull?
    • Fixed
      • We've still got a buried lede here: how about backing up and doing something like "only one of the animals' skulls was recovered: it displayed unusual dentition [in that...?], suggesting that it hunted..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
  • "Whether or not" is a tautology: simply "whether". UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • surfacing in narrow fissures in the sea ice, or leads: are these two different things? Leads can be hundreds of metres wide. Suggest "in narrow fissures in the sea ice, or in wider fractures known as leads".
    • Done
  • There are around 12,000 whales in Northern Hudson Bay,: we mean narwhals, I think, rather than e.g. blue whales, and so "individuals" vel sim is better.
    • Done
  • There are possibly 837 narwhals off the waters of Svalbard.: I would rephrase this: the current phrasing sounds like we're not sure whether those exactly-837 narwhals are in Svalbard or somewhere else, whereas I think we're pretty sure that there are some there, we're just not sure whether it's exactly that number.
    • Changed
  • One study found that the blubber was nearly devoid of various metals: reads oddly: which metals, exactly?
    • Fixed
  • Individuals of different weight and sex had a distinct concentration of metals in their organs: what exactly does distinct mean here?
    • Changed
  • There's a lot of weight on the details of bioaccumulation (almost as much as on climate change!): do we really need all of this, or would it be enough to explain what it is and why it's killing the animals? There's also a missing elephant in this room: where are all these metals coming from?
    • Fixed
  • Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I'd explain briefly what Brehms Tierleben is.
    • Fixed
  • Shephard 2013 is published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, and so appears to be WP:SELFPUB: this isn't good for verifiability. Can a better source be found?
    • Fixed
    • Done
      • "Population" is singular, so "there is a population": but why not simply There are estimated to be 170,000 living narwhals in the world or similar?
        • Fixed 20 upper (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry to keep introducing problems, but we now have an it with no antecedents: either change to the narwhal or, better, do something like "the species is listed as least concern under..." (I would italicise per MOS:WORDSASWORDS (actually best explained at MOS:CONFORM). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Changed, but I did not italicise cause there's no need. 20 upper (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • listed as least concern under the International Union for Conservation of Nature. : the IUCN is a body, so by the IUCN. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                Finally done. 20 upper (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illustration of a narwhal (lower image) and a beluga (upper image), its closest related species: this could be briefer: as there's only two, we only need to give the location of one (the second is then, pretty obviously, the other one): I'd say "illustration of a narwhal (top) and a beluga".
    Changed. 20 upper (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narwhals do not have a dorsal fin; they instead possess a shallower dorsal ridge: shallower than what?
  • under the International Union for Conservation of Nature, with an estimated population of 170,000 individuals: I'd put the population before the status: on a strict read, the IUCN has 170,000 narwhals hidden somewhere.
  • We have a picture of some bones next to the Description section; it would be very useful to have the fullest possible picture of a living one, to allow readers to see what the features described in the text actually look like.
    • Found nothing unfortunately.
      • What do you mean by "nothing" here? There are plenty of images on Commons to choose from: this one, for instance, gives a rough sense of scale and body plan, and nicely illustrates both the pigmentation, the flukes and the lack of dorsal fine -- all of that is a pretty major component of the description and none of it is really illustrated by the skeleton photograph. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't repeat the lead image in the body. 20 upper (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a display similar to "tusking".: what's tusking?
    • Explained in the part before the comma
      • No; we've said that's what they do, and that it's similar to tusking: if it is tusking, we need to say "a display known as..." or similar. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genome was made of 37.9% repetitive elements and encodes 21,785 protein-coding genes.: is that a lot? We really need some context to these numbers.
  • As a result of their prey moving in a vertical manner, narwhals may subsequently alter their foraging strategies: this isn't totally clear to me: do we mean that narwhals generally expect their prey to move horizontally, and have hunting strategies to match, but are able to vary that playbook if the prey start moving vertically?
    • Clarified
      • I still don't really see the connection between the sentences here: In the northern wintering grounds, narwhals do not dive as deep as the southern population, in spite of the fact that water depths in these areas are typically deeper. This is usually a result of their prey moving in a vertical manner, which then causes narwhals to subsequently alter their foraging strategies. How would you would express the main idea here in plainer language, or in everyday speech? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Explained. 20 upper (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's getting there. This is usually a result of their prey moving farther up the surface, which then causes narwhals to subsequently alter their foraging strategies: do we mean that prey in the southern areas tends to be concentrated nearer the surface? "Farther up the surface" isn't idiomatic English, but my sense is that this is what we're going for. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the skin, carved vertebrae, teeth and tusk, and the meat: suggest reordering: it isn't totally clear how many of these things are carved (presumably uncarved vertebrae are traded too: otherwise, how do the carvers get them?)
  • Tusks are sold with or without being carved in Canada: this isn't idiomatic: both carved and uncarved. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An average of one or two vertebrae and one or two teeth per narwhal are carved and sold: per narwhal hunted, or similar.
    • Done
      • I'm now confused as to how this sentence (especially "carved and sold") meshes with the previous one: we've said that these parts are also sold uncarved, so are more than two removed and sold, on average? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the level of detail on the different income from different bits of a narwhal is approaching WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, especially as it's a decade old: I would pick out the headlines here (that the most valuable things are the meat and male tusks, but most hunters lose money from hunting).
    • RM info unimportant info
  • Muktuk, the name for raw skin and attached blubber: cut name for (similar idea to MOS:REFERS).
  • Comma after vitamin C, before which.
  • this may cause some inferences for the narwhal population: inferences is not the right word (it means "logical deductions"). Do you mean "health problems"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the course of its evolution, narwhals have: pick either singular or plural -- but see below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the course of its evolution, narwhals have been constantly changing and adapting to their environment: I'm not sure this adds much at all: it's simply a description of what evolution means (compare "during the course of swimming, narwhals move through the water").
  • there was an increase in narwhal catches by hunters in Siorapaluk that did not appear to be associated with increased effort: Awkwardly phrased (was it the increases or the catches that didn't take an increased effort?): I'd suggest, as with a few other things here, aiming for simple and direct language. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seismic surveys associated with oil exploration have also disrupted normal migration patterns which may also be associated with increased sea ice entrapment: what is the antecedent of which: disrupted patterns or normal ones?
    • Huh? Could you please clarify what you are saying? 20 upper (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Which" is a relative pronoun; it has a noun as its antecedent. It's not grammatically clear from the phrasing here whether the sentence means "disrupted migration patterns may also be associated with increased sea ice entrapment" or "migration patterns may also be associated with increased sea ice entrapment". This could be solved by rephrasing: breaking the sentence in half, and then restating the intended subject in the new second sentence, would be one way to do this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. 20 upper (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seismic surveys associated with oil exploration disrupts: disrupt.
  • This disturbed migrations: These.
  • Introduce Frobisher on first mention. He's also wikilinked twice.
  • The tusks were staples of the cabinet of curiosities: too close to MOS:IDIOM in my view: needs to be phrased more directly and with more verifiable fact.
  • Agreed with Tompa that we should really have secondary sources to justify the inclusion of pop culture material: there's a lot of Verne here.
    • Added some citations
      • I see no secondary sources for Verne or Melville, which is where the problem lies. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just remove those mentions. LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a long period" : reads as scare quotes: I'd remove the quote marks (MOS:QUOTE, I think).
  • Queen Elizabeth: better as "Elizabeth I", surely? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientific names are italicised even in article titles.
  • There's a rogue space in the title of Best 1981.
  • Don't use fixed pixel size (it causes problems with displays of different resolution): use upright= instead. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Therefore, the general scientific consensus is that the narwhal tusk is mainly used for breeding purposes: this sounds painful.
  • Non-English words (like nár and muktuk) should be in the proper lang template.
    • Done
      • Not for muktuk. It needs to be done for a link at one point: put the whole link into the language template, including the square brackets. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remains of an abnormal-looking whale was discovered: were discovered ("remains" is plural). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. 20 upper (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The members of Delphinoidea, the white whales: any reason why we use the scientific name for Delphinoidea but not Monodontidae?
    • It wouldn't make sense since the other members of the taxa are written by their common names.
      • Ah, I'd misunderstood -- those are the members of Delphinoidea. In which case, I'd use dashes rather than commas: "the members of Delphinoidea –the white whales [etc] – are thought..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed 20 upper (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yet more pedantry: you've used endashes here (–), which are spaced -- best if you put a non-breaking space ( ) in place of the space before. If you want unspaced dashes, use emdashes (—). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done 20 upper (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not totally fixed: there's a particularly messy pairing of unspaced emdash (correct) and unspaced endash (incorrect) in the "Cultural significance" section. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                Done 20 upper (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientists urge assessment of population numbers with the assignment of sustainable quotas for stocks and the collaboration of management agreements to ensure local acceptance: this could be clearer.
    • Modified
      • Scientists urge the assessment of population numbers along with the assignment of sustainable quotas and to ensure local acceptance: modified, yes, but not much, and not really clarified. The last "and" seems to be vestigial, but other than that, I'm not sure any improvement has been made.
        • Much better, but needs to be acceptance of sustainable development, unless the locals are accepting something else (in which case, clarify). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. 20 upper (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2.3 Gbp genome sequence has been assembled from multiple Illumina libraries: I like to think of myself as an educated non-specialist, but this sentence was completely impenetrable to me.
    • What don't you understand? Please be specific. Should I explain what Illumina libraries are?
      • Almost anything, I'm afraid: I know what a genome sequence is (though not all readers will), but I don't know what it means for one to be 2.3 Gbp (giga-base-pairs?), or how I should contextualise that -- is that a lot? Do we have lots of other animals with the same or better levels of knowledge? Is that a full genome or just part of one? What does it mean for us, scientifically, to have that? I also have no idea what an Illumina library is (sounds like a place where the New World Order lend out books) or, again, whether it's unusual, interesting or significant that many of them were used to assemble this sequence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Source doesn't go into that much detail; I don't think I can reduce the technicality. 20 upper (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case, we need another source: this doesn't meet FAC criterion 1a (prose quality), as it isn't comprehensible to a sufficiently broad audience (a key tenet of writing for Wikipedia). Perhaps do a bit of digging in other sources into what some of these terms mean outside the narwhal context? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Noting that this has now been removed wholesale; I don't have the expertise to judge as to whether it's important enough to require inclusion for comprehensiveness, so will leave that judgement to others. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Yes, it's not that important. 20 upper (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • connecting seawater stimuli in the external ocean environment with the brain: this sounds good, but it doesn't actually mean much: we really need to know what it is about the seawater that the narwhals are interested in (its movement?)
  • for the role of a secondary sexual character: should be characteristic.
    • Fixed
      • More pedantry: you can't use something as a characteristic: these things are secondary sexual characteristics that are used e.g. to attract mates, signal good genetics, show social status... UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, fixed now 20 upper (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see a change here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, changed now.
              • I am getting a little confused here: we now have there is a consensus that narwhals use their tusks for the role of a secondary sexual trait, which is precisely the issue I raised further up. This isn't the only comment where you've declared it fixed and the problem remains: please do ask for clarification if you're not sure. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I see the change here: it has introduced an error: the phrase is secondary sex characteristics (as in the title of the linked article). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    Done. 20 upper (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise now what's confusing me about the hybrids section: we already talked about narlugas further up, and now this bit seems to be introducing them as a whole new idea.
  • with as many as three being killed and harvested during a sustenance hunt: what's a sustenance hunt? When did this happen?
    • Explained
      • harvested for human survival, during a sustenance hunt: this doesn't actually help, unfortunately. Suggest cutting the "for human survival", linking "sustenance hunt" to Aboriginal whaling, and making clear that we're talking about a single expedition (good to put a date on it) rather than a regular occurrence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now ungrammatical, unfortunately. I'm also really not sure about the "as many as three": it sounds like we only really know for sure of two of these things ever existing, so finding three in one place would be odd, especially as we only got to look at one of the skulls. Is there any reason to think that the other two were unusual? I'm just getting tied up as to whether we've definitely got three narlugas (so should cut "as many as three" to "three") or three animals, only one of which was definitely a narluga (so "one"). I gather from the narluga article that the hunter thought that other two were somehow weird, but does the source give anything stronger than that? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Fixed. 20 upper (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the decreases in sea ice cover, there were several large cases of sea ice entrapment in 2008–2010 in the winter close to known summering grounds, two of which were locations where there had been no previous cases documented: another one to look at for prose and clarity.
    • Fixed
      • Several cases of sea entrapment was recorded: plural, so were. The whole paragraph is still pretty stilted and slightly jargonistic (strong site fidelity, increasing the variability of sea ice concentration, for instance).
    Done. 20 upper (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narwhals can also die of starvation: can't just about anything die of starvation?
    • Fixed
      • Problem remains: again, just about everything dies of starvation from time to time; if we're including this, it should be because it's a major cause of death. More to the point, we should be explaining it: starvation might be the medical cause of death, but the interesting and important problem is why they have no food. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see much wrong with MeasuringWorth.com, but why not use the inflation template?
    Nevermind. 20 upper (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • the 16th-century equivalent cost of a castle is approximately £518662 in 2021, using the retail price index: this is a very awkward thing to just shove into a sentence: I'd make it into a footnote. Also strongly suggest using commas in large numbers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, perhaps I should have laid out more steps: the footnote, as currently phrased, does not really make sense. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Removed as OR. 20 upper (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in open tooth sockets which are situated between the muzzle: between isn't the right word here (between the muzzle and what?) Within the muzzle? Are they inside the mouth? I'm not sure what I'm picturing here.
    • Clarified
      • I'm still not particularly clear, but then I haven't seen a lot of whales' muzzles up close. Where exactly are these tooth sockets, in layman's terms? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarified; it's inside the muzzle. 17:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
          • Is that different from just being in their mouth -- which is where we'd normally expect teeth to be? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed.
              • Even more confused, I'm afraid! I'm looking at File:Monodon monoceros MuMo.jpg and I see a tusk coming out of the muzzle. How can a tooth socket be between them? Is it possible to see these sockets on those bones? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • Back to the previous question: is being in the muzzle different from being in the mouth, and if not, why are we specifying -- that's exactly where we'd expect tooth sockets to be? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  See figs 8 and 9 in [2] 20 upper (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That doesn't really clarify things for the article's readers, who won't have read this FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    OK, I finally clarified things. 20 upper (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we convert the CA$ figures into USD?
    Done. 20 upper (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not simplify US$424000 for 81 narwhals, or US$5200 per narwhal to simply $5200 per narwhal? It's better and more honest to actually convert the numbers (e.g. $5,000 CAD (equivalent to $6,000 US)): we're then showing our working and not obscuring the actual date involved. Again, the convert template will do this for you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noting that this is not fully done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Let me just ask for help at the Teahouse. 20 upper (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I'm not sure totally what the problem is, but I suspect the solution is simpler than you think.
          • Firstly, get the Canadian dollar numbers back: I'm afraid I can't remember what they were offhand, so I've used rough equivalents here, but you'll need to use the ones from your sources. That'll give you something like One estimate of the annual gross value received from narwhal hunts in Hudson Bay in 2013 was CA$7014 per narwhal. Of the total gross income made from the 81 narwhal catches, CA$399,260 was for skin and meat.
          • Then, put the numbers into the same terms by dividing the total income by 81 -- so One estimate of the annual gross value received from narwhal hunts in Hudson Bay in 2013 was CA$7014 per narwhal, of which CA$4929 was for skin and meat (again, use the real numbers and do the sums yourself). This is a routine calculation for the purposes of WP:OR, so is permitted.
          • Finally, add the {{To USD}} template after each one, exactly like this (equivalent to US${{To USD|[CAD amount]|CAN|year=2013}}).
          Let me know if that works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          @UndercoverClassicist: Yes, it worked. 20 upper (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Good job: this bit now looks sharp. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the gross income, US$296000 was for skin and meat.: this would make much more sense alongside the gross income.
    Done. 20 upper (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • One estimate of the annual gross value received from narwhal hunts in Hudson Bay in 2013 was US$5200 per narwhal. Of the gross income, US$296000 was for skin and meat: this has now been left in a strange state, where we have the per narwhal figure, then the total figure over an unknown number of narwhals. We need to make both speak the same language. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Actioned. 20 upper (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feeding in the winter accounts for a much larger portion of narwhal energy intake than in the summer: needs a rephrase: feeding accounts for all of a narwhal's energy intake, but it sounds like what we're saying is that they eat more in the winter and then rely on that stored energy through the summer.
    • Actioned. 20 upper (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feeding in the winter accounts for a considerable portion of narwhal food intake than in the summer: this needs another look for grammar.
        • Noting that this has not been done. Should this bit be with "diet", anyway? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. 20 upper (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It evolved in the late Pliocene and so is moderately accustomed to periods of glaciation and environmental variability: this needs a bit more explanation: I assume the point is that the sea ice in the Pliocene looked very different to how it does today, so narwhals have already been through this kind of change on their current biological setup?
    • Rephrased and better explained.
      • must have undergone adaptation to the frigid conditions of glacials and the ever-changing climate.: this is a bit poetic for an encyclopaedia. Could we put it more bluntly and factually? I'm not sure the ever-changing climate gives the reader very much factual detail to hold on to (changing every day, every year...?). UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noting that this has not, in substance, been addressed (though "ever-" has been deleted). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Changed. 20 upper (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • The the before glacials isn't idiomatic, nor is "the changing climate" in the sentence as written: suggest "climate change" or "climatic change" for the second. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Done. 20 upper (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article titles are generally in sentence case, but some (I noticed Waddell et al 2000) are not. **Fixed *** Not all fixed as I look now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC) **** Noting that this remains unfixed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC) ****:This one too. 20 upper (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ***** Again, on a quick scan, I see Miller et al 1995 (which has other obvious formatting problems). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ******Actioned 20 upper (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 77: rogue Bill Bryson quote in book title.
    • Fixed
  • Note 29: I'm not sure HowStuffWorks.com passes WP:HQRS.
    • Replaced
  • Don't use abbreviations for periodicals (like Geogr Rev) per WP:NOTPAPER.
    • Actioned


  • by DNA and isotopic analysis: DNA analysis I understand, but isotopes of what, exactly?
    • Added
      • Should be "carbon/nitrogen isotope analysis", but could we have a basic idea of how this worked? From my very limited use of isotope analysis for human remains, they tend to tell us about where someone lived (specifically, which water they drank), but not much about their ancestry or genetics. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Clarified. 20 upper (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see that the edit made here has addressed the issue: do narlugas somehow have a different balance of carbon/nitrogen isotopes in their bones? To bring back my earlier point: this is predicated on there being a difference between what narwhals and narlugas feed on, but we haven't said that, or indeed clarified what that difference is. 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC) UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Done. 20 upper (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • wherein both chemical elements were concentrated at a greater scale than those of both parent species: I'm not sure where this has come from, to be honest: it's on a completely different track to the conversation we've just had, and introduces a whole new problem (why would that imply that the animal is a hybrid of both -- it seems, at least to a non-specialist like me, to suggest that it's something altogether different.) UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            I answered your question above: "do narlugas somehow have a different balance of carbon/nitrogen isotopes in their bones?". 20 upper (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            OK, but a reader who hasn't read this FAC will need to first know that narlugas have a greater concentration of carbon and nitrogen in their bones (though I'm not sure where the isotopes come in here?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            The isotopic analysis confirmed this. 20 upper (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            That's a circular argument, unless there's some important context not included. If the isotopic analysis confirmed that they were narlugas, it can't also confirm that narlugas have different concentrations of carbon and nitrogen. Otherwise, we end up saying that we know that Skeleton A is a narluga because it has lots of carbon, and we know that narlugas have lots of carbon because Skeleton A is a narluga, and Skeleton A has lots of carbon... and so on ad infinitum. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            OK, I hear you. Clarified. 20 upper (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Yes, this is correct now: there were two steps to the analysis -- 1) they DNA sequenced the skull, proving to their satisfaction that it was a narluga: 2) Given that it's a narluga, they did C/N isotope analysis to work out what it ate, and concluded that it ate different stuff to either parent.
            Sadly, this now puts that conclusion in the wrong place. Honestly, I'd simply shift it over to the narluga article, where it's relevant and interesting: even in the Diet section here, I'd struggle to construct a relevance argument for it, as it's about the diet of an animal that isn't a narwhal. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Moved to Narluga. 20 upper (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a team led by K.J. Finley tested 73 narwhals of different ages and genders to see what they ate. The individuals were from the Pond Inlet and had their stomach contents tested from June 1978 until September 1979.: This could be much briefer: try e.g. Between June 1978 and September 1979, a team led by K.J. Finley examined the stomach contents of 73 narwhals..
    • Done
      • The order of the sentence isn't quite right here: we need The study found that the Arctic cod ... made up about 51% of the diet of the narwhals in 1978: it's the date of the eating, not the finding, that we care about. Otherwise good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited. 20 upper (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking on it, there's an elephant in the room here. Did the study suggest any reason for this abrupt change? Given that this is a single observation of a single population, we need some way of verifying that it's not just a coincidence, fluke result or bit of statistical noise: in other words, some reason to trust that we can extrapolate from this single study into something useful for our understanding of narwhals in general. Has anyone cited this study and suggested what conclusions should be drawn from it? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The people who cited this study discuss the sample size and prey items, but they never address the reason behind the reduction. 20 upper (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tricky one. If nobody is confident saying what this result means, there's a strong argument against including it in a high-level article intended for people who don't know the field (not a perfect analogy, but see WP:MEDRS on some of the dangers of including unmediated experimental results in articles for general readers). There's an implied conclusion that the result reflects a real change with some real causal factor behind it, but we haven't really given the citations to support that.
    One way around would be to take the change out and to say that the study found that they ate arctic cod, Greenland halibut (and other stuff?) in varying proportions. I notice that we say that both percentages changed, but only give the second value for the cod. Minor, but always use the singular-for-plural for fish, unless you're explicitly differentiating between different species: people eat fish, not fishes, and narwhals eat cod, not cods. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited. 20 upper (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've ended up with a bit of a problem here:
    • The study found that the Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) and Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) were the most commonly consumed prey.
    • But... The main prey of males were redfish (Sebastes marinus) and polar cod (Arctogadus glacialis); both species are predominantly found in depths deeper than 500 m (1,640 ft).
    • And... The study also concluded that the dietary needs of the narwhal did not differ among genders or ages
    All three of these things can't be true at the same time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Better now? 20 upper (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've got Males consumed additional prey items such as (emphasis mine), which is not supported by the source. Our wording implies that females generally stuck to cod and halibut (which isn't true: both were eating a lot of squid, just not in the summer), and that males had the listed additional food plus some others. The source is clear that it's specifically talking about these three deep-water species. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this should be done now. 20 upper (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last major entrapment events occurred when there was little to no wind: not sure about the prose here, and we need an "as of" or similar per WP:ENDURE.
    • Done
      • As of 1918 means that this information was only in date until 1918: do we mean that, as of 2023, the last major entrapment events were in 1918 and happened in low winds? That seems to contradict what's said immediately after. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's odd to talk about "the last major entrapment events" immediately before, later, "several [previously: large] cases of entrapment". What's the difference here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Fixed. 20 upper (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've had a look at this source, and I'm now extremely confused. No events in 1918 are mentioned anywhere in the article, nor does anything cited here suggest that 1918 was the last major entrapment event (nor could a source from 1918 ever do that). More prosaically, it would be good to have a specific page range cited (216 and 223) rather than the whole article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done
              • Entrapment affected around 600 individuals, most occurring in areas such as Disko Bay: not sure what's happened here. Are you talking about a specific event, or an all-time count? If the former, we need a date or date range; if the latter, we need something like has affected around 600 individuals in total (but that seems very low?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Edited. 20 upper (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map would be extremely useful in the Distribution section.
  • The United States has forbidden imports since 1972 under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.: imports of what? Link the Marine Mammal Protection Act. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. 20 upper (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The United States has forbidden narwhal imports: this means the import of (living) narwhals, but did you intend to say imports of narwhal products? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. 20 upper (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narwhals are listed on Appendix II of CITES and CMS.: what does this mean?
    • Fixed
      • Narwhals are listed on Appendix II of CITES and CMS, meaning trade of narwhals and their body parts is restricted and controlled: meaning that. This would be better put alongside the US import restrictions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the increased exposure in open water.: exposure to what: predators?
    • Narwhals aren't adapted to living in open water. 20 upper (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK: that needs to be explained. What problems do they face when they go there? It sounds like you meant to write to open water. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, you're right; changed now. 20 upper (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see a fix here: in fact, earlier in the article, we talk about open water being essential for narwhals to breathe. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Edited. 20 upper (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tusks were displayed in the cabinet of curiosities: which cabinet of curiosities?
    • Many cabinet of curiosities; source doesn't specify.
    Edited. 20 upper (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most book titles are correctly in title case, but some (I noticed Heide-Jørgensen & Laidre 2006) are not.
    • Fixed
      • Not all fixed as I look now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noting that this remains unfixed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't see the ones you're referring to. 20 upper (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • On a quick scan, I see Bastian and Mitchell 2004 and Mann 2000; there may well be more. The only way to catch them all is to check them all. The IUCN volume (note 49) is also cited very strangely. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actioned 20 upper (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Still a few issues in the bibliography -- not an exhaustive list, you just need to go through it carefully:
  • Note 2 has the journal title in the article title (and outside it as well).
  • Some initials have dots after, others don't; some well-known first names (such as that of Carl Linnaeus) are not given, while some obscure ones are.
  • The publishing details of a non-English book should be in English: Linnaeus's are in Latin (and the locative case, to boot).
  • Still a couple of capitalisation problems.
  • Dash needed in Pappas (beluga–narwhal).
  • Where a book doesn't have an ISBN, it should have an OCLC or Open Library ID (use Worldcat.org to find them)
  • Note 16 still has authors formatted inconsistently with the rest.
  • https://narwhal.org/ appears to be a Wordpress blog (see WP:SELFPUB: what makes it a high-quality reliable source?
  • Books generally should be dated only to the year (see note 27, which is also badly capitalised): there's a case for doing more specific dates for webpages and journals which come out monthly or weekly, but our system for books should be consistent.
  • Note 31: something's wrong with that author name.
  • Notes 37 and 38 are both general news reporting on a scientific study and its conclusions: I'm not sure about these as WP:HQRS in context. Can we track down the original study and/or an academic treatment of it?
  • There's no comma in the title of Laidre et al 2003.
  • Publisher for Tinker 1988 (correct the date) is E. J. Brill, not Brill Archive.
  • Books should use the ISBN printed in the book: 13-digit ISBNs were only issued from 2007, so earlier books should use the 10-digit one.
  • Title formatting in Klinowska 1991 is very odd. She's credited as the compiler, which I'd say is much closer to editor than author, as it explicitly disavows her responsibility for the text.
  • Some journals have ISSNs given: this should be consistent (https://portal.issn.org/ is good for finding them).
  • Per WP:NOTPAPER, spell out page ranges in full (e.g. note 63: 929–930, not 929–30.
  • Note 68 (Hoover et al 2013): The Arctic Institute of North America is the publisher, not the journal title.
  • Most books don't have a location of publisher, but some do (e.g. Daston and Park 2001, note 85): probably easiest just to remove it where it's given, as it's not massively useful in these days of ISBNs and globalised access to books.
  • What makes Rundell 2022 (The Golden Mole) a high-quality reliable source? It looks like a pop-nature book to me, and the author is a children's novelist.
  • Duffin 2017 shouldn't have an issue number (where none is given, because each volume only has one issue, don't add one).
  • After going over the references a number of times, I think I've covered everything. I am, however, unable to edit the first citation because it is not in a citation template. 20 upper (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the easy fix is to put it into a citation template, then? On another note, I notice you seem to be going for sentence case for all titles (though this is not yet consistent): note that MOS:TITLECAPS advises title case for titles of books. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am done now? What am I left with? 20 upper (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the above is sorted. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked, and I'm done. If not, please specify. 20 upper (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three major things: capitalisation (see above re. MOS:TITLECAPS, falsely precise dates of "1 Month Year" (should just be "Month Year" or even "Year" unless we know for sure it came out on the 1st), and the Linnaeus citation. ISBNs also need consistent formatting. New one: note 65 needs an endash, not a hyphen, in the title. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You first stated that ISBNs issued prior to 2007 should be assigned a 10-number system, and now you're saying that they need to be formatted consistently?

I find nothing wrong with the Linnaeus citation—that's how most articles cites it, anyway. Completed the Title Case thing. For the date, we are precisely sure that it came out on the first, and I don't see the need for a change here. 20 upper (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On ISBNs -- yes, they do need to be consistent: not as to how many digits they have, but as to whether they use dashes or not. On Linnaeus: where's Holmiae and who's Laurentii Salvii? We keep titles into the original language (optionally using {{{trans-title}}} to show the English), but translate other details, such as place and publisher. I find nothing on the Canadian Journal of Zoology website to show which day of the month it publishes on, but please do point me to anything you've found that does so (likewise for Biological Conservation). UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and Laurentii Salvii is a place not a person. 20 upper (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not: it's Lars Salvius [sv], Linnaeus' publisher. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Sorry it took so long; today I was extremely busy. 20 upper (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formatting in the Further Reading section is inconsistent: why not just use citation templates (with ref=none) for this?
    • I don't think that will work; see like Lion and Polar bear.
      • What exactly do you think the problem is? Neither of those articles have Further Reading sections. Consistency of formatting is a basic standard expected at FA, and there are plenty of FAs that use citation templates to achieve that (I've written a few of them!). UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something has gone quite badly wrong here: take them out of the ref tags and use bullet points. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Done. 20 upper (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Noting that there are still quite clearly visible problems here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Please be clear; I don't see the problem. 20 upper (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            To name a few: Heide-Jorgensen has "Archived ... at the Wayback Machine" italicised as part of its title, Groc has a bare url, Ford and Ford has ISSN/OCLC but Groc doesn't, and the date format is different between Groc and Ford/Ford. All of these would be easily solved by using citation templates. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Used citation templates. 20 upper (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Still some minor problems here: capitalisation inconsistency, pages for NatGeo but not NewScientist, ISSN and OCLC for NatGeo but not NewScientist. What would a reader learn from Perrin et al that they wouldn't be able to find in the article? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          New Scientist is a website and the NatGeo citation is a magazine. 20 upper (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Ah, of course: I hadn't appreciated that you were purely citing the web version of the article (New Scientist being primarily a magazine). All well here: though what's the idea with the External Links section? In particular, what value is there in the EB 1911 link (now very dated in all respects), and what are readers supposed to get from the other three? See my earlier comment about narwhal.org as a HQRS. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          OK, removed. 20 upper (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One small thing from the recent change: Inuit lance head consisting of narwhal tusk, displayed at the British Museum: consisting of means that it is entirely a narwhal tusk, which isn't accurate: I would reinstate the original "made from a narwhal tusk with a meteoric iron point". You can drop the current location unless you think it's likely to be of interest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. 20 upper (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: The majority of the items have been actioned, therefore I would appreciate it if you could transfer the ones that have been resolved to the resolved section. This would make it simpler to see what's left. 20 upper (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: I have completed my work; kindly review it and cast a vote if you so choose. 20 upper (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice a lot of points where you've written "Fixed" and no change seems to have been made, or the fundamental issue has not been addressed. It's fine to ask for clarification or help, but it does take a lot of quite tedious work to respond to actions that haven't in fact taken place. Some comments resolved, others replied to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unwell; I think I have the flu. I will be taking a temporary break from this nomination, only returning to edit Wikipedia in order to maintain my mini 42-day editing streak. 20 upper (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Almost all of your recommendations have been completed; I have only left a couple, one of which requires me to ask for a new map, which I will take care of later today. I didn't write done, so you can determine whether I am finished and make your life simpler. 20 upper (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: I'll get to them when I can.
@UndercoverClassicist: Are we getting close? Because I think I'm almost there. I had no idea this procedure would be so time-consuming. 20 upper (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, the biggest time-sink here has been chasing up comments which have not been fixed as stated, or where the fix has introduced a new problem. FA reviews can be very quick, but I can't vote support on an article where I've raised issues and they haven't been addressed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: I've addressed every concern you brought up and given a brief explanation for some. We seem to be almost done, so I would really appreciate it if you could complete your review today. I apologize also for the grating pings. 20 upper (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little rude to try to give a deadline on a reviewer (especially a one-day one!), and perhaps unwise: after all, the reason the review is still going on is because I don't feel I can vote "support", but feel that there's a realistic chance that the article will be improved to a point where I can. In this particular case, though, I'm surprised that you've asked for a quick conclusion while also pushing one of the key points to the Teahouse, meaning that you know it isn't solved. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I wait for you, I'm working very hard to make this article better. However, the CAD to USD conversion is really overwhelming me; I've never been this defeated before, and not even the Teahouse seems to be able to help. Since I've finished most of your items, I think the review can be completed today. I have Saturday free, so I can afford to waste it. Remember that this is my first nomination and that doing this on my own is extremely difficult. So I ask you to please be patient with my foolishness. 20 upper (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Please continue your review. 20 upper (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just done another pass. Most of the text issues are sorted (though see a few outstanding above): I've given the bibliography a look and raised some issues there. The main thing format-wise is to be consistent: without wishing to unduly repeat myself, you need to go through it carefully and make sure that all the nit-picky stuff like title capitalisation, which parameters to include, date format, and spaces, dots/no dots after initials are absolutely consistent. Some of these issues are stated as resolved in Esculenta's review below but are not, in fact, fully resolved. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist It's been 3 days, can you wrap up your review in a timely manner. I think 20 days is enough to finish your review, and please don't ignore this. 20 upper (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the discussion you've started on Talk: hopefully that's helped put this into some sort of perspective. I'm not intending to cast a vote at the moment: the article is changing quickly and other reviewers are picking up substantive points, so I will wait at least until the dust from that process settles. While I can't speak for them, other reviewers may be having similar thoughts. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll just wait. 20 upper (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Esculenta edit

  • the first sentence of the article states that this animal is "also known as the narwhale", yet this alternative name is not mentioned again in the article
    • Edited
  • "It is a member of the Monodontidae family" -> "It is a member of the family Monodontidae "
    • Edited
  • "deepest diving marine mammals" -> "deepest-diving marine mammals" (compound adjective needs hyphen)
    • Edited
  • link gestation, Inuit
    • Edited
  • the references section formatting needs some fine-tuning throughout. Some examples:
  • what's the formula for "et al." invocation? I see FN#33 is 1 author + et al., whereas FN26 is 10 authors.
    • Edited
  • is there spacing between author initials ("Mead, J. G.; Brownell, R. L. Jr.") or not? (Laidre, K.L.)
    • Yes
  • should there really be an ampersand between two authors? ("Laidre, K.L. & Heide-Jørgensen, M. P.")
    • Edited
  • some citations missing bibliographic information (e.g. FN#12 doesn't have the author or publication date
    • Edited
  • archives are useless for links like [3] (a Journal Article Abstract Page) and just add junk to the citations
    • Edited
  • last name, first name ("Bianucci, Giovanni;") or otherwise? ("Jorge Vélez-Juarbe & Nicholas D. Pyenson")
    • Yes; changed second item.
@Esculenta: Any more? 20 upper (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave it. Esulanta is active and will hopefully wrap up the review in their own time. If not we are happy to form our own view based on their comments and your responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...

  • Okay, all material in the lead needs to be present in the body of the article. Alternate names needn't be in the lead if they are uncommon. I'd find a source that discusses the name "narwhale" (with the 'e' on the end) and slot it after sentence 2 in the Taxonomy section. If you can't find any reliable source discussing it, I'd drop it entirely.
  • There are estimated to be 170,000 living narwhals [in the world] - bracketed bit is redundant (I mean, there aren't any populations on the moon or Mars are there...)
  • The first sentence of the Evolution subsection is somewhat beyond the scope to be emphasised. I'd rewrite as "Genetic evidence suggests that within the Delphinoidea clade, porpoises are more closely related to the white whales and that these two families constitute a separate clade which diverged from dolphins within the past 11 million years.
  • Why did you opt for plural instead of singular all the way through the description section?
  • Narwhals are medium-sized whales and are around the same size as beluga whales. - comparison is unnecessary here. Why not something like, "Medium-sized whales, narwhals range from 3.5 to 5.5 m (11 to 18 ft) in length, excluding the tusk."
    • Completed all, and opted for singular. 20 upper (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Are you going to cast a vote now? 20 upper (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need to do another read-through. I found the writing could be tightened in a couple of places and pondered about it overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Can you specify where that is; the article is quite large (3,770+ words & 76,000 bytes). I'm busy too, but let's make an effort to facilitate each other's life. Anyways, thanks for your time. 20 upper (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandbh edit

You mention that, "Narwhals are notoriously hard to study in the wild, which could have implications for the protection and survival of the species." OTOH the article mentions naught about any of this. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine who studied at Harvard University said his mission to tracking narwhals failed miserably back in 2011; I'm simply quoting what he told me when we last met in January. He's a qualified biologist, so I trust anything that comes out of his mouth. 20 upper (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Googling around, several sources mention the narwhal is hard to study. This being so, the article should say something along these lines.

The quality of images of narwhals on the article are not, IMO, up to FAC standard. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I wish I could use better images, but this are best images I could find. 20 upper (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: There are plenty of better images of narwhals on the web. Go and look for them, check their copyright status, and if needs be write to their owners requesting permission to use their images on Wikipedia. Someone mentioned the "really high" FAC standard. This is a good example. Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could only find one; the rest are copyrighted or missing a copyright tag. There aren't many good photographs of narwhals, so we have to work with what we have. At least the images used are enough to illustrate what the text states. 20 upper (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they're copyrighted ask the copyright owner for permission. If they're missing a copyright tag then you're not doing enough research. Sandbh (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

  • I think that the section "Vestigial teeth" needs to be re-written. The main issue is that it is really difficult to understand. As written, it is also contradictory (are they toothless or not?). Also, it specifically only is about males (since it states "The tusk is" …), with females not covered at all.
    • Done
  • There could be more about adaptations to the arctic habitat. For example, mention the blubber in the description, and how thick it is. This study [4] states that Myoglobin content "is one of the highest levels measured for marine mammals". Such things should be covered.
    • Done
  • "Distribution" section should come before "behaviour"
    • Done
  • Narwhals typically visit Baffin Bay […] – This, and what follows, is about a particular location and should be replaced with general information (e.g, do they generally travel north in summer)? These sentences could stay to support such a general statement, but only as an example. Also: Why is this not discussed under "migration"?
    • Done
  • The distinctive tusk is used to tap and stun small prey, facilitating a catch – Why is this not discussed in the paragraph that discusses tusk function?
    • Done
  • Between June 1978 and September 1979, a team led by K.J. Finley – Why is the year and scientist's name mentioned here, but elsewhere you only say "a study"?
    • Done
  • The second paragraph of "Diet" partly repeats what was already stated in the first paragraph. Those need to be combined, and the information re-arranged.
    • Done
  • aspartic acid racemization – too technical, replace with easier term (amino acid dating or something like that).
    • Done
  • Major predators are polar bears, which typically wait at breathing holes for young narwhals, and Greenland sharks.[18][62] – Please check the part about Greenland sharks as major predators, that seems to be incorrect.
    • Done
  • Hunting is better discussed under "Conservation", not under "Lifespan and mortality".
    • Done
  • Provide common names in the cladogram where available.
    • Done
  • it was suggested that the rubbing of tusks together by male narwhals is thought to be – "thought to be" does not make sense.
    • Done
  • Its neck vertebrae is jointed, – singular/plural
    • Plural
  • In the "threats" section, the Inuit are the first to be mentioned, but in fact the IUCN mentiones them as an instance of sustainable uses. Most of that info should probably go under "Relationship with humans".
    • Done
  • The biggest and most fundamental issue I see is the relationship with humans. Some information are provided, but the information is spread over different sections and the important connections are not made. Maybe think about a major section "Relationship with humans" that discusses all this stuff in a well-structured way. It should discuss the history of the interactions between narwhale and humans. E.g., everything related to Inuit; then the significance in European culture, i.e. why was the horn so important? What were its uses? Since when? I heard that already around 1100, Vikings traded with them. This needs to be discussed more deeply I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jens Completed all; what are your thoughts?
      • Will have a second look now.
  • Can you explain source [84] to me? It only consists of two sentences but is supposed to support four sentences in the article? Or I missing something?
  • The narwhal tusk has been a highly sought-after item in Europe for centuries. This stems from some medieval Europeans' belief of narwhal tusks being horns from the legendary unicorn. – Can you tell me where your sources state that the unicorn belief stems from the middle ages? The German Wikipedia states that it came to Europe from Asia during Antiquity. You even contradict this a few sentences later: The trade strengthened during the Middle Ages implies that the trade existed before the Middle Ages.
  • Around 1,000 AD, Vikings collected tusks washed ashore in beaches of Greenland and surrounding areas, and traded them. – One of your sources says that during the middle ages, the Vikings traded most horns with the Inuit. So this is at least misleading.
  • In 1555, Olaus Magnus published a drawing of a fish-like creature with a horn on its forehead, correctly identifying it as a "Narwal". – This lacks context. Why is this drawing significant?
  • The "European" section reads a bit like a rather random assemblage of anecdotes but does not really provide the big picture. Did they believe the tusks were from a sea animal, or from a horse-like unicorn? When was this belief refuted? How does the belief about the powers of the tusks develop in later centuries, and when does it stop? No coverage on these important points.
  • Source [86] is an entire book about Narwhal (the only one I see), but is only cited once, for a single sentence? This makes me wonder if the available sources (particularly the secondary sources) are sufficiently taken into account.
  • Continuing with "taxonomy" now: Its name is derived from the Old Norse word nár, meaning "corpse", in reference to the animal's greyish, mottled pigmentation,[7] and its summertime habit of lying still at or near the surface of the sea (called "logging"). – Your source states "might be", which is an important difference.
  • The scientific name, Monodon monoceros, is derived from Greek: "one-tooth one-horn".[7] – We usually provide the words from which the name is derived (you did hat for the Old Norse, but not here).
  • and its summertime habit of – this phrase is directly copied from the source, making me worry about Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. This is an issue here since this phrase is quite distinct and creative.
  • indicating that the remains belonged to a narluga; – you need to explain what a "narluga" is; it might be obvious to you but we should not let readers guess.
  • suggesting that it hunted on the seabed, much as walruses do – Your source only states that walruses feed on the seabed, while isotope signatures are like those of walruses. But it does not claim that the hybrid hunted on the seabed; this is therefore a clear case of WP:Synth.
  • Stopping here now (as I am running out of time for today). There seem to be some major problems with the sources in the two sections I looked at in a bit more detail. I hope this is not the case for the other sections. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Johnbod edit

  • I probably won't do a full review.
  • The lead is only 3 paras. It is supposed to summarize the whole article.
    • That depends on the size of the article; currently, the article is not large enough to warrant a fourth paragraph. I believe I summarized the whole article.
  • At the end: "This caused the narwhal tusk to be one of the most sought after prices in Europe for many centuries. .... Ivan the Terrible had a narwhal tusk covered by jewelry embedded on his deathbed". Both sentences have language issues. I hope this isn't typical. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed
  • Your fishy links are rather a mess - "Greenland halibut" is not linked at first appearance (in the Migration section), then linked twice later. Arctogadus is called both the "artic" and "polar" cod within a matter of a few sentences. Boreogadus saida is also called both. I think this is right - I just got completely confused. Probably you should always use the Latin names as well. Generally the article reads well, but I keep turning up stuff like this (I haven't completed my read-through) which makes me think the article has not been adequately prepared for FAC. You may have to be still more patient. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod: OK, done. 20 upper (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comment edit

Pinging all reviewers @TompaDompa, Esulanta, UndercoverClassicist, Casliber, Sandbh, Jens Lallensack, and Johnbod: Please indicate a vote, I don't know why most of you won't finish your review. I've been patient with y'all, so if you do not want to vote, just say so. Thanks 20 upper (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: If this nomination does not receive a support in 7 days, please archive it. 20 upper (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a learning process. FA is achievable but it can be wearing when issues arise. I am pretty busy as well so have free time intermittently. I've also been pretty much dormant for a couple of years with other pastimes and am only starting to rev up here again now. I'll take another look and help out soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been putting off doing a full review for a few reasons. One is that I'm actively working on other things at the moment. Another is that this is a fair bit outside of my wheelhouse, so I'm less confident in my ability to ascertain whether the article is indeed up to the high standards set by the WP:Featured article criteria. A third thing is that an admittedly fairly cursory look at the comments and replies above indicates to me that the article is likely not up to those standards at the moment. All of this makes me reluctant to commit the fairly substantial amount of time and effort it would take to conduct a full review at this time. I do not anticipate a full review from me to be forthcoming within the month of February. Should the article garner significant support from other editors that have reviewed the article more thoroughly, I will be significantly more likely to do a full review of this nomination. TompaDompa (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Fine, I just wonder if it's me, the reviewers or the article? I fixed all issues yet nothing. I'm probably the problem, so giving up is the only sure way to fail, which is what I'm seriously considering right now. But I'll try this patience thing one more time; 6 days to go. 20 upper (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever told you FAC was a quick process was wrong. Take a look at the bottom of FAC. The oldest nom began last year. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least that article has 2 supports. I believe this nomination should receive a support by now, because I've addressed all comments. You guys are all unwilling to complete your reviews. Johnbod, or someone else, at least finish your review. You haven't told me what's wrong with the article; you've just let me wait and waste days. I ping, expecting a reviewer to at least finish their review, but none did. Reviewers basically write random comments, I respond to them, and then they go away without finishing or voting, which makes me feel like I'm wasting my time. All in all, this is extremely frustrating. And I don't get why this nomination has more than a 1,000 views when nobody is supporting it. I need to take a break from this nomination and come back next week. 20 upper (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a persons's first FA nomination, it's going better than most would. I'll take another look soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on, based on my experience, is that the comments and responses to the article run to > 12,000 words. Evidently the article was not ready for FAC consideration at the time it was nominated. The article has never been stable enough, or reasonably so, so that an editor could form a view of it. As well, > 12,000 words of comments and responses make other editors wonder what other shortcomings the article has. The next thing I am going to say may seem difficult to accept but here it is: In listing an article at FAC and responding to reviewers, take the attitude that, barring any confusion, the reviewer is always right in framing your response. Disagreeing with reviewers or effectively saying things are too hard to do, except in egregious cirumstances, is a guarantee of no support or an oppose. You always get to choose your attitude to the FAC process: complaining about reviewers and insuating that they let you wait and waste days is one (unhelpful) option. Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is supporting because no-one particularly wants to engage with extensive issues still extant after 115kb of comments (see Jens above) and a nominator increasingly grumpy that people aren't sticking to imaginary deadlines, but no-one also wants to oppose a first-time nomination which has clearly received significant attention from the same nominator. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 good points, but I'll leave it at that. I'll resolve Jen's issues tomorrow, withdraw, then, if I have the courage, return. I used to fantasize that I would write Featured Articles, but apparently it was not meant to be. Farewell, FAC; I withdraw. 20 upper (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it has become more of a peer review than a FAC. I appreciate you went for PR before FAC, as people are advised to do, it's just a pity more comments were not forthcoming at that stage. You could try another PR after actioning Jen's comments, pinging the FAC participants, and then having another go here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Narwhal/archive1&oldid=1213843005"