Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Narwhal/archive4

Narwhal

Narwhal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 7 July 2024, 05:45 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

• Featured article candidates/Narwhal/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Narwhal/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Narwhal/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Narwhal/archive4

Nominator(s): Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the unicorn, a one of a kind marine mammal. It has a long, protruding left-sided canine tooth or tusk that can grow to a whopping 3 meters or 9.8 feet. I have addressed every concern brought up in its last nomination, and I believe it is ready. In order to spare the previous reviewers some inconvenience, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from pinging them. I don't have much to say, so I hope you enjoy the read. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Scientists have long speculated that Vikings collected tusks washed ashore on beaches of Greenland and surrounding areas – I remember that I commented on this very sentence in multiple of the previous FA nominations and peer reviews of this article. Which source is supporting this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  "When ivory came from the seas. On some traits of the trade of raw and carved sea-mammal ivories in the Middle Ages" -- the first one. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you mix something up here? The source seems to be the first to propose that Vikings got them from the shores of Greenland, so "scientists have long speculated" seems wrong. According to that source, the older sources suggested that narwhal tusks were washed ashore in Europe (without necessarily involving the Vikings, I think), which is a quite different story. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not really, it uses a 1978 source so it cannot be considered the first. Also changed to European beaches. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  You don't seem to understand; Europe and Greenland beaches are two separate hypotheses. Don't mix them. And does the source say that Vikings collected them on European beaches? I don't think so. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  You did not fix it, you just reverted back to the old version. Again: The sentence is, in this form, not supported by the source, and you are mixing two separate hypotheses. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's not how I understood it. The first (outdated) hypothesis is that tusks were washed ashore in Europe. No vikings. No Norsemen. (What's the difference between vikings and norsemen btw?, why do you give both names?) Anyways, I think you should read the source again carefully. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  We don't use the first hypothesis since they are not specific about it. The difference between Vikings and Norsemen is that Vikings are a more specific group of Norsemen (i.e. they are a more aggressive, attacking group). All Vikings are Norsemen, but the opposite is not true. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• A minor issue is that you write "was later disproven", but I don't think you can actually "disprove" such a hypothesis; better write "is now considered to be unlikely" or similar (the source itself does not use a stronger wording too). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

UC

The article was withdrawn from FAC on 17 June; the sum total of the changes since is here. It must admit that I don't see all that much, outside the final few paragraphs, and there I'm not sure that the changes represent improvements. Other reviewers may form their own opinions, of course. I think it is also worth restating that the major issue in the last FAC was verifiability; a few facts and sources have been removed or changed in this series of edits, but the majority seems to remain as it was last time around. Wolverine XI, less than two weeks ago you were advised to take a step away from the article, work on some other topics, and then come at it again when you were ready to give it an overhaul with fresh eyes: do you think you've done that? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did get fin whale to GA, so... Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

From Tim riley

The nominator has asked me to comment, and I hope to do so. I am having surgery on my right hand tomorrow, leaving me strapped up, and am not sure how quickly I shall be able to type properly after that, but will do what I can on or after Friday. Tim riley talk 13:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and best of luck with your hand surgery. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 13:18, 3 July 2024

too strapped up to type much now, but hope to have my right hand back on 10th of this month and to comment then. Tim riley talk 13:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand; please do come back as soon as you can. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)