Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giant Otter

< 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 promoted 00:09, 2 February 2008.

Giant Otter edit

Check external links

After much work, I think this is ready. The most obvious article to compare to is the excellent Sea Otter. This page is somewhat shorter, with fewer individual refs. The Giant Otter is a much rarer species and comparatively under-studied. There are two essential papers on the animal; as they are both large and cited frequently here, I have treated them as we normally do books, with a separate listing in References and individual page numbers in Notes. Two or three sentences can probably be added to the Interactions section, but otherwise I don't imagine much needs to change. Upper case is in use for the species name; a significant minority of sources do the same, so it isn't unusual. (If you do want to change it, bring it up on article talk first—certain sentences won't make sense with lower case.)

Thank you to Sandy for looking for Spanish refs, Casliber and Clayoquot for some pics and other pointers, and UtherSRG for his usual MSW3 addition. A couple of people have shown up in the edit history doing a read over and I don't think there's typos left. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a special thanks to Pharos for adding info on mythology. Marskell (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After Pharos' additions to mythology and the incorporation of Spanish refs from Sandy's sandbox, the Interactions section is now robust. This was the last possible comprehensiveness concern I could think of. Marskell (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments Conditional Support sod it, they aren't deal-breakers... once a couple of tweaks taken care of ok, I'm goin' in....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given Taxonomy is how something is named, I generally rename naming to etymology and make it a subsection of taxonomy (it's also nicer for heading heirarchies)

globular appearance (??) - makes me think of Pac-man, I know what you're trying to say, just how literal folk are really.... 'snub-nosed' ? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Agree this is really hard, as OR can't be veered into, if round/spherical/ball-shaped/globular was what the writer intended/wrote so be it..choose the best...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
  • "The animal is susceptible to a variety of diseases, including the Parvovirosis that also affects domestic dogs." Should this be, or be piped to, Parvovirus?
(I just fixed that on my readthrough) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The metric -> imperial conversions aren't handled consistently. In the Habitat section, for instance, only metric measurements are given, whereas in Physical characteristics metric with an imperial conversion is given. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I think Cas got the first, and I've converted the numbers in Habitat. I made a point of checking for that and missed an entire patch. Marskell (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Page ranges need en-dashes.
  • Brightorange helpfully took care of the en dashes. Marskell (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphens shouldn't by used after -ly words.
    • I found (ctrl-f) and removed one instance. Adverb-adjective compounds never take a hyphen? Hm. Marskell (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistant formatting of numbers over ten, eg. "within twenty years of 2004" "this may increase to 17"
  • Changed "twenty" twice. I do watch for it and wouldn't have done it with compounds; I don't see "thirty" or "forty."
  • En-dash needed in the External links section. Epbr123 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Content-wise, I think this is a stellar overview of a relatively poorly researched species. It will be a good reference point (perhaps even too high a bar!) for analogous article in the future. The capitalization of the species name is inconsistent with other otter articles, but that seems to be an unresolved issue throughout the wiki-animal-kingdom. Also, the references might be more attractive in two columns. Otherwise, no comments. Cheers, Eliezg (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I tried hard to find something to kick on with no real success. I don't know very much about these animals, but the PDF in the external links section (Duplaix, Nicole (2002)) focuses a lot more on dens and scent markings, information sort of missing in the article. I'm not sure if this is necessary, but maybe adding a sentence about it in the habitat section would solve this? ("about twice as long the inner fur" in the Physical characteristics section, is this really proper English?)
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an enormous amount from Duplaix; I had to be selective, as we're not writing a book here. The second paragraph of habitat does have some of what you mention but I'll go back and see if anything more can be added.
I think that's proper English! The second sentence of the article includes "About the length of an adult human being..." Sometimes I think it better to give a more visual description, rather than number after number. Marskell (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to that PDF and managed to add a couple of extra things, including on habitat. Marskell (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport close to supporting, but there are a couple of places where it lacks cohesion. In no particular order:
  • In the "Physical characteristics" section we are told that little research has been done on the animal's vision, but in the hunting section we are told it is "visually oriented" and "relying on its sharp eyesight to locate prey".
  • I provided a fuller description. They seem pretty clear that relying on eyesight is easily inferred
  • In the threats section, the pattern of habitat destruction through logging and farming is established and we are then told that other threats include "unsustainable mahogany logging" and "water pollution from...agriculture". Surely these aren't other threats.
  • Fairly significant reworking of the section.
  • "Considered "vulnerable" for years" - "for years" is a bit loose.
  • Unpacked.
  • "Schenck et al., who undertook extensive fieldwork in Peru in the 1990s, suggest specific "no-go" zones where the species is most frequently observed, offset by observation towers and platforms to allowing viewing. Limits on the number of tourists at any one time, fishing prohibitions, and a minimum safe distance of 50 metres (164 ft) offer further protection." - do the measures in the second sentence exist already, or are they also proposed by Schenck et al.?
  • The latter; clarified.
  • "Populations in Bolivia were once widespread but became a "black spot" after poaching between the 1940s and 1970s..." - the country became a black spot? Or the population was represented by only a black spot? I'm guessing the former.
  • The former; clarified.
  • "The species has likely been extirpated from southern Brazil, although decreased hunting pressure in the critical Pantanal may have led to recolonization; a rough estimate suggests 1,000 animals in the region" - it can't both be likely extirpated and have an estimated population of 1,000
  • The Pantanal is W-SW, not strictly in the south (i.e. the sort of cube that juts down to the east of Paraguay). I'll go back to the paper to see if I can better clarify.
  • Thanks for clarifying yourself. The paper: they "inhabit south-eastern and central western regions of Brazil, but they are believed to be extinct in southern Brazil." I read it in other places.
  • Wikilinking is all over the shop.
  • I'm blue-linking less and less. I don't think it's totally inconsistent: I dab words I think might make people for clarity, as well as standard things like countries. I'll try to add a few more.
Fix those and I'll support as it is a good piece of work, and I'd guess it wasn't easy pulling all the information together. Yomanganitalk 12:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yomangani. I'll do this in bits and pieces. Marskell (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the wikilinking, I wasn't complaining that there weren't enough, but you have (for example) Brazil linked when it is first mentioned, but other countries not linked at all until (and unless) they appear in the list of countries in the distribution section; Black Caiman not linked until the second mention; anacondas linked every time they are mentioned (I think); Neotropical Otter linked twice... Anyway, that's not enough to deny it FA status, so I support its promotion now. Yomanganitalk 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to improve some of the wikilinking. Thanks for the review and support, Yomangani. Marskell (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Giant_Otter&oldid=1078800052"