Talk:Sea mink

Specimens?

Does anyone know any museums that have specimens- skeletal or mounted? Also, ANY illustration at all- I've never seen even a drawing. CFLeon 04:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• From the Extinction Website, linked from the main page - Skeletal and skin specimens were not collected by zoologists (Sealfon 2007). Sea Mink remains, primarily cranial, have been excavated from Native American shell middens, although no collector is known to have preserved a complete specimen (Dunstone 1993). Specimens can be found in the collections of the American Museum of Natural History, New York (AMNH); the Frick Collection of the American Museum of Natural History, New York (F:AM); and the Maine State Museum, Augusta (MSM). (Sealfon 2007) --Petemella (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Labrador Duck

Although I've seen references to the Sea Mink eating sea birds, I haven't seen any indication in any sources I've read that the extinction of the Labrador Duck is in any way a factor in the extinction of the sea mink. Can anyone supply a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petemella (talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

One of two terrestrial mammalian carnivores to go extinct in modern times?

What about the Thylacine?--Withlyn (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see, mammalian carnivore is used to mean Carnivora. This should be made more clear.--Withlyn (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also the extinction of the Giant Fossa (Cryptoprocta spelea). And besides the Sea Mink, the Falkland Wolf and Giant Fossa there are more recent or historic extinctions in the order of Carnivora, like the Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis) and the Japanese Sea Lion (Zalophus japonicus). Only I guess they are not considered terrestrial. Peter Maas\^talk 19:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear when the giant fossa went extinct, but there are no historic observations. Goustien (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Thylacine is a marsupial.--74.105.16.42 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

grouping

The "Extant species of family Mustelidae" group should not be displayed as the sea mink is extinct.--74.105.16.42 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sea mink/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I will review this article.
• At first glance, this article has the same problem as the sea cow had, a description section which has text that should be split into a behaviour/ecology section

I feel like that could also fit under Description, and since it's a small article, it doesn't really seem relevant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

It isn't an issue of overall article-size, but about making it easy for the reader to find the info they are looking for. If 99% of articles have separate description and behaviour sections, there is no good reason to merge them here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

split   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think you need to add the word extinction to the section title that deals with this.
• Since it is pretty naturalistic, and we know pretty much what it looked like, I think you could put the drawing in the taxobox.

At sea cow, someone said that skeletal remains go in the taxobox for extinct species if no specimen image is available   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this is mainly true for extinct species whose life appearance is not entirely known, and in the case of the sea cow, the old drawing was pretty crude. Also, we had good photos of entire skeletons that would look nice in the taxobox. But in this case, I'd say a modern drawing, which is based on a close relative, is better than a drawing of a jaw-fragment. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I asked over at the taxobox template talk, and I think the consensus was to keep the drawing of the dental morphology than the speculative restoration   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a comment there. But I think you would get more opinions if you posted that at the paleo/extinction project talk pages. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll ask there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Any preserved skins today? This page seems to show a mounted specimen:[1] If so, it should be stated, and perhaps how many there are.

it is stated, the results of a study said it was just an American mink for the record   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Any genetic work? If not, state by the cladogram what methods were use din creating it.

none that I'm aware of, I don't think genetic work is really an option considering there aren't any specimens   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm literally leaving for vacation right now, I'll be back on the 12th, so I won't be doing much in the way of editing until then. Is that okay?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I'll be leaving shortly after you come back, hehe. But by the time you come back I will have reviewed the entire article, and we can hopefully wrap it up the couple of days we're both "here". FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• "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]" This is a bit strange way of opening the taxonomy section, since you immediately jump the the original description in the following sentence. Since the debate obviously occurred later, it would be better to deal with this chronologically.

the first description of it was listing it as a subspecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• "said that the size difference was insufficient evidence to classify the sea mink as its own species, and should be considered a subspecies" You should add "and that it should be considered", to make clear what you're referring to.
• "furthermore, it had said that the 2000 study" This is awkwardly worded. Just say "furthermore, the study said" or some such.
• "and said that they were distinct enough" Saying "concluded" would be better than the very vague "said".
• "The taxonomy of minks was recently revised in 2000" Avoid ever writing "recent" in any article, you never know how long the article will exist. And is 2000 really "recent"?
• "The study concluded that the size difference was caused by environmental factors" Like what?

discussed later (like where it talks about the Alaskan Mink)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• The map has no source, which is problematic.

I just used this map because the other map of the area confuses me so much because it has so many labels and isn't zoomed out enough to easily make out Canada and Maine. Nothing seems wrong to me factually with this map, but I can change it if you want. Maps are public domain if you're worried about copyright infringement, by the way. This didn't seem to be much of a problem for the Steller's sea cow map, it just needed to have the source missing tag   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll let it slide, but may become a problem at FAC, if you want to go there. Would be easy to just make a new map by cropping a simpler map of North America. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

My computer's too slow to upload anything onto the Commons so I can't really do anything regarding images   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I found the source, fixed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Relations of the sea mink within Mustela" State in the caption if this is based on morphology.

it's impossible to base it on anything else considering there's no specimen to collect DNA from   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Give etymologies for the scientific names.
• Regardless of what you do with the restoration, it should be offset from the image of the teeth: images should never be on the same line opposite each other (thereby "sandwiching" the text). And subjects of images should preferably face towards the text.
• "around 4,300±300 years old, around 19 kilometres" Repetitive wording.
• "or brought there by Native Americans" By being brought there.
• "and it is said that they formerly existed" Said by who?

a lot of people (Canadian field naturalist, IUCN, etc) should I pick one? I have to double check but I'm pretty sure that the source just said "people"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• " its range may have extended south of the Gulf of Maine, and may have even evolved there" And it may have.
• "Accounts from Native Americans in the New England/Atlantic Canadian regions" You state earlier it may never have lived in Canada?

keyword 'may,' no one's really 100% sure of anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• "most of its external measurements are speculation" Speculative would sound better.
• "he 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.[7]"
• "the most aquatic member of the taxon" I would say group here.
• It would make more chronological sense to mention hunting by native Americans before that of later settlers.
• "the largest family in the order Carnivora." Why is this info relevant to this article?
• "Distinctions made between the two minks is that the sea mink was larger and had redder fur. In fact, the justification for it being its own species is the size difference between it and the American mink." This is awkwardly written. Also, you state twice that it was distinct because it was larger. Could e a single sentence. Also, it seems it is distinguished by its teeth, which are not even mentioned here.

the size difference is what's impressive about the teeth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• You should mention something about its behaviour in the intro.
• The intro could be split into two paragraphs.
• That is all, I am going on a trip from Friday night and some weeks after, not sure how my Internet will be, but I will try to close this when you have replied. FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm coming back on Saturday, I'll start editing then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I missed my flight so I'm stuck here until Wednesday at least. I'll start editing then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I only got wifi today... FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I fixed all the stuff above by the way (unless I said otherwise)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added two comments above, but generally looks better. "Humans and extinction" seems very generic as a title, though, I would called it "interaction with humans and extinction" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I was gonna do that but it seems too long to me, should I change it anyways?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "decline and extinction", as in quagga? FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I put "Humans and extinction" instead of just "Extinction" because one paragraph talks about extinction and the other paragraph just talks about its interactions with native americans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Still looks awkward. How about "hunting/exploitation and extinction"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Changed to Exploitation and extinction   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• By the way, do you see anything that would be a significant problem in FA (other than the map)? Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, I would expand it with anything if possible, since it is a bit short. I think the restoration could be moved to the description section, doesn't seem to have much to do under extinction. Also, I think you could be more specific about its behaviour in the intro, simply saying it was similar to another species doesn't really explain anything to the reader (who may not know the behaviour of the American mink). FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I expanded the lead and moved the image, but I'm not really sure what else can be said about sea minks. Maybe someone'll think of something at FA, thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Last thing, I think it should be mentioned in the intro that it is only known from skeletal fragments today, and if you can find the info, list which elements are known of the skeleton, and perhaps how many specimens exist. But I will pass now, the first point I mentioned should be done afterwards in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FA Review

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].

---

Sea mink

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

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)

Comments from JM

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)

• "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)

• "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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

• "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)

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

• "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)

• "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)

• " 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)

• "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)

• "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)

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)

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

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

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)

"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)

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)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

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

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

• 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)

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)

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

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

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)

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

• 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)

Source review from Vanamonde

• 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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))

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

• 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)

• "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)

• "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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

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)

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

TFA

Sea mink

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 6, 2017 by Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

[[File:|120px|Drawing of a sea mink published by the Canadian Field Naturalist in 1988]]

The sea mink (Neovison macrodon) is a recently extinct species of mink which was most closely related to the American mink (Neovison vison); though there is debate about whether or not the sea mink should be considered a subspecies of the American mink (making it Neovison vison macrodon) or a species of its own. The main justification for this is the size difference between the two minks. Its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains. The sea mink was first described in 1903, after its extinction; its appearance and habits stem from speculation and from accounts made by fur traders and Native Americans. Its behavior may have been similar to the American mink, in that it probably maintained home ranges, was polygynandrous, and had a similar diet. It was probably found on the New England coast and the Maritime Provinces. Largest of the minks, it was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s or the early 1900s. (Full article...)

• Most recent similar article(s): Dire wolf July 17, 2017
• Main editors:   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
• Promoted: 5 October 2017
• Reasons for nomination: I know people might think sea minks are pretty boring, but I think they're pretty cool and underrated as far as extinct things go
• Support as nominator.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Seems like an interesting subject matter to have on the main page. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

When was it named, and by who?

I just noticed, quite late, that under synonyms, you have "Lutreola macrodon Wagner, 1841". This has some implications for the article, first, it wasn't named in 1903, it was only moved to a new genus then, and if we assume this is correct, it was actually named before it went extinct. So both the text and the taxobox seems to be wrong, what do you think, Dunkleosteus77? FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The 1903 Prentiss paper describes it as a new species, Lutreola macrodon. It looks like Wagner named the genus Lutreola in 1841, but did so for Mustela lutreola, not for the sea mink, per this review by Hollister 1965 Cephal-odd (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, in that case, how come it is listed as a synonym here? Doesn't make sense, even if we assume the two were considered one back then, that name can not be a synonym of both. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• By the way, the image now in the taxobox has been nominated for deletion. I'd recommend maybe putting the jaw image in instead. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

"Head to tail" ?

What does "Head to tail" means in :

91.4 centimeters (36 in) from head to tail, with the tail being 25.4 centimeters (10 in) long

Does it means its full length was 36in or 36+10 = 46in ? It's really not clear --Yug (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

it means from head to tail (as in, the combined measurements of the head and of the tail) it was 36 inches, and the entire tail itself (as in, only the tail and nothing but the tail) was 10 inches   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)