Marine mammal edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get this to FA. I'd have to say I'm most worried about the In captivity section
Thanks, User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Good work here. Some thoughts:
- I've made an edit to the article which refactors the evolution section. I think this is the most important part of the article — it's good that it's near the top. The reader should definitely understand by the end of this article that there are five extant lineages, and what those lineages are. I also integrated the content at the top of the Taxonomy section.
- When the topic of your article is basically a list, watch out for writing where the list is iterated over several times, and see if you can reduce the amount of times the list is iterated over. In this example, you want to go over the list once, in one sentence, to introduce the five lineages. Then when you go over each one in the list over several paragraphs, tell the reader everything you want to tell so you're not repeating the list over and over again. Also, watch out for lists that are jumbled together or not organized in any particular way, in this case it was like "extant extant extinct extant extinct etc." when the extant and the extinct should be separated. Make sure the reader knows that there are five extant lineages and what they are, and try not to let any other info muddy up that explanation.
- You mean like seperate paragraphs by topic not group? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ok I didn't do a good job of explaining this.
- So you've got the list of 5 extant mammals, and that's the most important thing in your article for people to know. The way the section was before, the first sentence said something like "there are several distinct lineages", and then mixed together the five extant ones with the extinct ones too. Then, later in the same paragraph, the section said "cetaceans became marine 50mya, pinnipeds 40mya, etc."
- Then, in the following paragraphs, it said "Here's how cetaceans became marine", "Here's how pinnipeds became marine", etc.
- I moved it around so it now says: "Cetaceans became marine 50mya. Here's how cetaceans became marine." Then "Pinnipeds became marine 40mya. Here's how pinnipeds became marine" etc. All the info on cetaceans is grouped together, and all the info on pinnipeds is grouped together, so on and so forth.
- Most readers are going to forget a lot of the information in this article after their done reading it. If there's one thing you want them to remember, it's this list of five lineages and what they are. See how it is now? It says explicitly: "there are five lineages — (1) ... (2) ... (3) ... (4) ... (5)." Then, there's a bulleted list with five bullets. When the reader looks at that they can go "oh, so there's five lineages and the bulleted list has five bullets, this all makes sense." Then, after you're done telling the reader about the extant lineages, there's additional info about extinct lineages, and then a bit of extra info that concludes the section.
Furthershore 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I turned the list into paragraphs because I'm pretty sure that list was against WP:Manual of Style#Bulleted and numbered lists User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#"Children" (i.e., Indentation) for a precedent on what I did, however a lot more clarity was lost by some of the other changes you made. "There are 129 species . . . improved foraging efficiency has been the main driver in the evolution in these lineages." Ok, so now there's 129 lineages and lineage=species? Cetaceans and sea cows are species?
- It is in my experience that paragraphs attached to bullet points look like scary walls of text User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#"Children" (i.e., Indentation) for a precedent on what I did, however a lot more clarity was lost by some of the other changes you made. "There are 129 species . . . improved foraging efficiency has been the main driver in the evolution in these lineages." Ok, so now there's 129 lineages and lineage=species? Cetaceans and sea cows are species?
- I turned the list into paragraphs because I'm pretty sure that list was against WP:Manual of Style#Bulleted and numbered lists User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Most readers are going to forget a lot of the information in this article after their done reading it. If there's one thing you want them to remember, it's this list of five lineages and what they are. See how it is now? It says explicitly: "there are five lineages — (1) ... (2) ... (3) ... (4) ... (5)." Then, there's a bulleted list with five bullets. When the reader looks at that they can go "oh, so there's five lineages and the bulleted list has five bullets, this all makes sense." Then, after you're done telling the reader about the extant lineages, there's additional info about extinct lineages, and then a bit of extra info that concludes the section.
- Remember, people on the FA team aren't going to know anything about this stuff. One of the criteria for FA status is that the prose is "engaging" (it used to say "engaging, brilliant even"). Articles at this level are not just about sources or npov, or even adhering to the MOS, it's about creating some of the best, most clear technical writing on Wikipedia. One way or another you've got to get this article there if you want it to be featured.
Furthershore 23:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Remember, people on the FA team aren't going to know anything about this stuff. One of the criteria for FA status is that the prose is "engaging" (it used to say "engaging, brilliant even"). Articles at this level are not just about sources or npov, or even adhering to the MOS, it's about creating some of the best, most clear technical writing on Wikipedia. One way or another you've got to get this article there if you want it to be featured.
- Watch the technical jargon. In the lead I can sort of guess what "convergent evolution" means, but I don't know what "polyphyletic" means. Maybe instead say:
Marine mammals comprise a polyphyletic group — they do not all share a common ancestor, but rather are united by their common reliance on the marine environment for feeding, which they have all arrived at through convergent evolution.
- Watch the technical jargon. In the lead I can sort of guess what "convergent evolution" means, but I don't know what "polyphyletic" means. Maybe instead say:
- So here polyphyletic is in italics, which makes it less intimidating, and then afterward it's explained what the word means. Remember if you want this to be a featured article, people are going to read the article who know very little about biology.
- I think using italics for effect is against WP:Italics User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- So here polyphyletic is in italics, which makes it less intimidating, and then afterward it's explained what the word means. Remember if you want this to be a featured article, people are going to read the article who know very little about biology.
- I haven't read WP:Italics carefully, so this is up to you. You could also try putting "polyphyletic" in quotes like so. The most important point here is that you explain what polyphyletic is in simple terms and not force the reader to follow the wikilink. The wikilink should ideally be so that the reader can get further information, not because they don't understand the word, because if they have to follow wikilinks to understand what you're saying it can throw off their flow.
Furthershore 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I haven't read WP:Italics carefully, so this is up to you. You could also try putting "polyphyletic" in quotes like so. The most important point here is that you explain what polyphyletic is in simple terms and not force the reader to follow the wikilink. The wikilink should ideally be so that the reader can get further information, not because they don't understand the word, because if they have to follow wikilinks to understand what you're saying it can throw off their flow.
- I just defined polyphyletic directly after. Generally with big sciencey words, you just have to wikilink it and leave it as is User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Consider moving Classification of extant species stuff to List of marine mammal species article. The list and diagram contain extra taxonomic info that aren't in the scope of this article, and the whole section is just intimidating; It gives me this overwhelmed sort of "ugh, how badly do I want to read this stuff?" feeling.
- I agree the cladogram seems excessive but the guy who did the GA review insisted it be there, should I just get rid of that? The list, on the other hand, should stay because I keep referencing it (more or less) in the article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I took a second look at this and it's not as bad now that that first paragraph is gone. Just make sure that the body of the article starts after the chart so the flow isn't disrupted. Remember, some people are going to read this article from top to bottom.
Furthershore 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I took a second look at this and it's not as bad now that that first paragraph is gone. Just make sure that the body of the article starts after the chart so the flow isn't disrupted. Remember, some people are going to read this article from top to bottom.
- Take all that h4 stuff and split to new article. You said you were most worried about the in captivity section — just move it out to a sub-article and deal with it later. Write a shorter (maybe 4-10 quality paragraphs) summary about marine mammals in captivity and the threats humans pose, and put link to a new Main Article: Marine Mammals and Humans or something similar. Have all the detail there. Keep this article simple, give em the highlights, and focus on quality with the basic info about the marine mammals themselves. Then, the Marine Mammals and Humans article (or whatever you end up calling it) can be a summary topic article that branches out to all of those sub-articles for whaling, climate change, etc.
- So write one section on in captivity and another on controversy, or write one paragraph on in captivity and another on controversy and have them be in the same section? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's up to you, and this really is an art form. I tend to prefer explaining things chronologically whenever I can, like maybe: "in the 1970s these animals were in captivity, and then this animal rights group did this. Then, in the 1980's these animals were being hunted, and this animal rights group spoke up about it, etc." or whatever.
Furthershore 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's up to you, and this really is an art form. I tend to prefer explaining things chronologically whenever I can, like maybe: "in the 1970s these animals were in captivity, and then this animal rights group did this. Then, in the 1980's these animals were being hunted, and this animal rights group spoke up about it, etc." or whatever.
- So write one section on in captivity and another on controversy, or write one paragraph on in captivity and another on controversy and have them be in the same section? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Redo the citations and make them short, with a separate list of references. Yes, I know it's a lot of work, but it's a lot cleaner, and I think FA people probably look at stuff like that.
- You mean like in the Whale article? I did that because I thought it'd look cleaner but it's actually much harder to find the actual ref when you do that User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see too much of a problem with the Whale article as the short refs link directly to the long refs so if the links are working properly you don't have to go digging. This isn't quite as important as the other stuff, but it does make it more difficult to make source based (non-visual) edits. Furthershore 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- When you click on the short ref it just bunks you down a little bit and you have to carefully look at the bulleted list to find the ref that has a slight blue highlight User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see too much of a problem with the Whale article as the short refs link directly to the long refs so if the links are working properly you don't have to go digging. This isn't quite as important as the other stuff, but it does make it more difficult to make source based (non-visual) edits. Furthershore 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- You mean like in the Whale article? I did that because I thought it'd look cleaner but it's actually much harder to find the actual ref when you do that User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- See if you can get some more "external links" too.
- Is five a good number? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah maybe, see if you can find some good videos or profesional photo galleries to link to. Furthershore 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- got it to 5 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah maybe, see if you can find some good videos or profesional photo galleries to link to. Furthershore 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Is five a good number? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I hope this helps.
- Furthershore 04:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
One comment: The evolution subsection mentions that they have a paraphyletic relation. Does the source really say that? Polyphyletic would be more accurate. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)