Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dusky dolphin/archive1

Dusky dolphin

Dusky dolphin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 4 February 2025, 02:49 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I brought this article to GA status over ten years ago. In past couple weeks, I've made some changes to it, including adding more information and sources. I now leave it to you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

  • It is commonly thought that the dusky dolphin was first described by John Edward Gray – how can this possibly under debate, when there are nomenclatural rules? And nothing is mentioned later on that he might not have described it.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot from a specimen collected off the coast of Tasmania two years before his own classification – the key question (regarding priority of names) here is when this dolphin was described, right? Why is this not mentioned?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • before gaining another name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, – its the current name, not just "another", right?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • from stuffed skin – "from a stuffed skin"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • and sent to the British Museum though the Royal College of Surgeons – this meaning of "though" is new to me, but I'm not a native speaker.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is commonly thought that the dusky dolphin was first described by John Edward Gray in 1828 from stuffed skin and a single skull shipped from the Cape of Good Hope to the British Museum. Gray first described the species as Delphinus obscurus and reported that the animal was captured around the Cape of Good Hope by a Captain Haviside (often misspelt "Heaviside") and sent to the British Museum though the Royal College of Surgeons in 1827. – This whole paragraph is a bit low quality. It doesn't really go in-depth about the first description (I would definitely look-up and cite the first description itself, too). Also, it says shipped from the Cape of Good Hope to the British Museum and in the next sentence, repeats that very same information.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • before his own classification – "classification" should be "description"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dusky dolphin was reclassified as Prodelphinus obscurus in 1885 by British naturalist William Henry Flower, before gaining another name, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, from American biologist Frederick W. True in 1889. – I feel this lacks context, and you did not even link to those genera mentioned, and do not explain what this means for its relationships.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 1999 mitochondrial cytochrome b gene indicates that the genus Lagenorhynchus, as traditionally conceived, is not a natural (monophyletic) group. – Related to my point above, clearly lacks context; you never explained how that genus was traditionally conceived, and you do not even mention which species it now contains, apart from the dusky dolphin.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2006 finds that the dusky and the Pacific white-sided dolphin form the sister group to the (expanded) genus Cephalorhynchus. – Again, context: You have to explain what "expanded" means here, it is completely meaningless for me, even though I think that I know something about phylogenetics.
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this placement is accurate, a new genus name will need to be coined to accommodate these two species – But the two species are already united in the genus Lagenorhynchus? Why is a new genus name required to "accomodate" them?
Changed wording. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • are moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias – should explain what Sagmatias was, and why it fell in disuse.
The source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested – "suggested" means that these identifications are uncertain? Why is that?
Based on photography LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this placement is accurate, a new genus name will need to be coined to accommodate these two species – The study is from 2006. Is this up-to-date?
Changed wording LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following cladogram is based on Banguera-Hinestroza and colleges (2014) – "colleges"? Colleagues? Link "cladogram"? Is this a genetic or morphological analysis?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been peer reviewed. That draws hardly anybody. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you now removed a lot of content instead of adding context. Thanks for adding the year of description for D. supercilious, but what I don't get: How can it be a "junior synonym" when it was named a year earlier? That would make it a senior synonym, no? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. I removed content that was clearly causing confusion and simplified it. The point is, genetic evidence does not support the traditional Lagenorhynchus species being one unique grouping. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still not clear to me. According to Synonym (taxonomy), the earliest published name is called the senior synonym, while the later name is the junior synonym. The earlier name cannot be the junior synonym. You give two sources for this; I could only access the first, which did not mention junior synonym here, but it does say that, apparently, the first description was based on several skins (so you took my suggestion without checking what the sources actually say), and it also speaks of several skulls, not just one skull. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified further. The second source mentions the junior synonym. Please don't accuse me of not checking the sources. I checked the second source. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the inaccuracy with the skin/skins, and only wanted to say "don't trust what I say, always double-check with the source". Now you say "skin" again but shouldn't it be plural? Maybe "from stuffed skins with skulls", since the skulls were apparently inside the skins, and from the same individuals? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack, could you look at it again? I make changes to the rest of the article and two other users have concluded their reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you address my concern about the taxonomy section not being up-to-date? For example, why show a 2014 cladogram when a much newer one [1] is available? You say that A 2019 study has proposed that the dusky dolphin, together with the Pacific white-sided dolphin, hourglass dolphin, and Peale's dolphin be moved to the resurrected genus Sagmatias, but without information if that proposal was accepted or rejected by subsequent studies. The paper I just cited says "Lagenorhynchus, now included within the genus Sagmatias"; this seems to be uncontroversial by now, so why do you still keep it in the genus Lagenorhynchus? For example, the Inaturalist link in the taxon identifiers [2] links to the inactive taxon since they already moved to Sagmatias obscurus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because many post-2019 papers still use the traditional name, including cites 45 and 54. as well as this, this, this and this. I requested a new cladogram. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will take a look at the rest once time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • a distinctive colouration that resembles the Pacific white-sided dolphin. Its pigmentation consists of – "Its pigmentation consists of" seems unnecessary and does not add anything; also, why use "pigmentation" here when you used "colouration" in the previous sentence?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its pigmentation consists of a dark grey or black area around the dorsal fin and along the back – But "around the fin" is already part of the back. Looks like the entire upper side was mostly black; why not just stating that?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the numerous identification guides, I somehow doubt there isn't information on how to distinguish this species? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens, I was wondering if there was more to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog. I will take another look.
  • How do the subspecies differ from each other? That's standard info in mammal FAs.
Theres no information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the authorities for the subspecies? That's also standard info. And yes, I do think it is important: I was looking at one of your sources, the encyclopedia, which is from 2008, and it says that "no subspecies are recognised", so I was wondering why you list them here – have they been described later? That's why we really need that information.
The three subspecies are recognized by the Society of Mammalogy. I have no damn clue why the 2008 doesn't. Added subspecies authorites. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an article like this, a range map is standard. We have the Map workshop, there is the IUCN page with the data. In this particular case, the distribution is very complicated, with many disjunct areas, this really needs a map.
I DID request a new map a month or so ago. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you use this one or isn't it accurate? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it per image review. There's no source for the data. LittleJerry (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dusky dolphins travel up to 780 km (480 mi) – During a day? During their life? (Edit: The source says that range size is up to 780 km, but when reading this, I thought you meant the total distance travelled. These are different things).
It says they "move over great distances—a range of 780 km is confirmed..." so there is nothing wrong with the text. LittleJerry (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, dolphins off Argentina and New Zealand move to and from shore between day and night or between seasons. – This seems vague and unclear and I would be interested in what the source says here precisely. Do they make seasonal movements or not? (Edit: the source clearly implies "and", not "or")
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around Kaikōura, New Zealand, the majority of individuals were seen only once in the area over the course of 30 years, suggesting a high occurrence of immigration and emigration. – If they were seen only once in 30 years, then that's a single instance of immigration. How can you speak of a "high occurrence of immigration" then?
What's the confusion? It's talking about the population. There's a lot of moving in and out of the area. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I misread it, never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What water temperatures do they prefer?
  • In Kaikōura Canyon, group size can reach 1,000 dolphins – Do you really mean "in" the Canyon (and only there), or do you mean "at"?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have been found around bottlenose dolphins, but seem to ignore them, and may share feeding areas with Risso's dolphins. They also associate with – but when they actively associate with bottlenose dolphins, that means they are not ignoring them?
Where does it say they actively associate with them? That's why I used the words "found around". LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dusky dolphins are also susceptible to parasitism by certain nematode, cestode, and trematode species, mostly the genera Nasitrema and Anisakis, and Phyllobothrium delphini, Braunina cordiformis, and Pholeter gasterophilus. – I see various issues with this. First, you do not say what kind of parasitism this is (these are all helminths it seems). Second, you cite a 1993 paper here, which is a primary source. However, there seems to be another, more recent primary source (Dans et al., 1999), and a secondary source (the 2008 encyclopedia you cited elsewhere) that covers both, and does not fully match what you say.
Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The encyclopedia also has info on other diseases; they should be worth mentioning, if you mention the parasites? Also note that in many other FAs, predators and parasites are a section of their own while you only have a single sentence, so no reason not to expand on this
Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Kaikōura Canyon, where deep oceanic waters meet the shore, dusky dolphins forage in deep scattering layers at night. They arrive at the hunting site individually, but form groups when in the layer.[41] The dolphins use their echolocation to detect and isolate individual prey.[39] The number of dolphins in a foraging group inversely correlates with the depth of the scattering layer.[41] – Here, you first report on a particular study at a particular locality (the scattering layers in Kaikoura Canyon). Then, you have a general sentence on echolocation (general information should come first, then the site reports). But after that, you go into the scattering layers in Kaikoura Canyon again, but without indicating that; you imply this correlation is a general fact, but it has actually only been claimed at that particular location, where group size was very low (1 to 5 individuals), while you stated earlier that "in Kaikōura Canyon, group size can reach 1,000 dolphins". Not mentioning the group size the study dealt with is therefore quite misleading. Another issue with your sentence "The number of dolphins in a foraging group inversely correlates with the depth of the scattering layer" is that it is unnecessary complicated; why not simply say "Foraging group sizes decrease with increasing depth of the scattering layer"?
I don't know what you're getting at. I'm describing how they hunt at Kaikōura. I wasn't generalizing about all dolphins. Added group size and moved echolocation. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In San Jorge Gulf and Admiralty Bay, dusky dolphins will forage during the day. – Is it unexpected that they feed during the day? Do they feed during the day only at the mentioned location?
Again, what are you getting about? I already mentioned that "Dusky dolphins are generally coordinated hunters and their flexible foraging strategies can change depending on the environment". I gave examples of foraging in one area (Kaikōura) and then another (San Jorge Gulf/Admiralty Bay). These questions are very strange. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the source now, and the sentence does not make sense to me. The source is a review of day feeding in Dusky dolphins, not something about a particular locality. They also don't say that the dolphins are day feeding in one area and night feeding in others, which is what you are implying. Another chapter in the book says that they tend to day feed in shallower water and feed at night in deeper water where the have the scattering layer. This kind of information would be helpful, but the current sentence clearly isn't (not only that, it seems to be misleading). As a side note: And this book "The Dusky Dolphin …" is 350 pages just on this species, covering all kinds of different aspects, and the article is just a bit over 3000 words – is that really adequately covering the topic? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source literally says the "Prey herding by dusky dolphins has been studied in the Marlborough Sounds (mainly Admiralty Bay), New Zealand and Golfo Nuevo, Argentina". I also just recent added "Most studies of foraging and social behaviour in the species have occurred at Kaikōura and Admiralty Bay, New Zealand and San Jorge Gulf, Argentina". The sources cited state: Dusky dolphin foraging and social behaviors have been studied primarily in Golfo San José, Argentina (Würsig and Würsig 1980); off Kaikoura, New Zealand (Benoit-Bird et al. 2004; Markowitz 2004); and in Admiralty Bay, Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand". and "The dusky dolphin is an aerially-active species that has been studied at three sites (Golfo San José, Argentina; Kaikoura, New Zealand; Admiralty Bay, New Zealand)..." I was not being misleading. These are the sites that are studied at. And no, the number of pages for a one book on a species does not mean the Wiki page should be a certain length, especially since theres a lot of technical and repeating information. LittleJerry (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In San Jorge Gulf and Admiralty Bay, dusky dolphins will forage during the day. – Is everything in that paragraph just about these two localities?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attacks from above by diving birds like gannets can make herding more difficult for dolphins. – Reads as if the gannets would attack the dolphins.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are recorded to dive no more than 50 m (160 ft). – You cite a 2012 paper here (a primary source). The paper does not make this claim. The authors only state that during their study, in their particular study area, they did not record dives greater 50 m. You simply cannot assume that this holds true for the species as a whole. Indeed, your secondary source states that dives "as deep as 130 m" have been recorded, contradicting your statement.
I missed 130 m but i clearly wrote that the have been recorded to dive no deeper than 50 m. I didn't not make a blanket statement. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to switch to oppose, because of multiple issues and insufficient coverage, but mostly because of the serious sourcing issues. It appears to be symptomatic for this article that you misuse primary sources to make general claims where you simply cannot, while not making use of secondary sources even though these are available. Sorry for being so harsh, but I simply don't think that the article is ready. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jens Lallensack can you possibly care your mind or do I have to withdraw? I've never encountered complaints about primary vs secondary sources for an FA. I already cite Perrin, Brownell and Jefferson nine times each and the book specifically on Duskies 32 times. I generally use secondary sources for general information and peer reviewed articles for more specific things. I clearly qualify statements not can't be generalized. Like when I wrote that "They are recorded to dive no more than 50 m." Things also get complicated when the primary sources cite many, many secondary sources. I find some of the peer review article though these books. LittleJerry (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems we are not on the same page yet. "They are recorded to dive no more than 50 m" means that nobody recorded them diving deeper than 50 m. But the source only says that during their fieldwork, in their particular study area, they did not record dives deeper than 50 m. You therefore used that source for a general statement even though the source did not make this statement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Made some changes. Could you take another look? LittleJerry (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

brachy08

hi! im doing yet another FA review (i have no experience with animal-related articles, so extra points for that)

  • However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described and as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot in 1826 based on a specimen near Tasmania. → However, Gray later wrote that a similar dolphin was described and as Delphinus supercilious by French surgeons and naturalists René Primevère Lesson and Prosper Garnot in 1826, based on a specimen near Tasmania.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. brachy08 (chat here lol) 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hybrids of dusky dolphins have been suggested based on observations and on photographic evidence, including with a common dolphins.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. brachy08 (chat here lol) 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The teeth number between 108 and 144. Missing an is.
Not needed. You can use "number" that way in the present tense like "they numbered over 50 people" in the past tense
Clarified. brachy08 (chat here lol) 00:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Kaikōura Canyon, New Zealand, group size can reach 1,000 dolphins, while in Admiralty Bay, they peak around only 50 animals. Seems a bit inconsistent (dolphins and animals)
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. brachy08 (chat here lol) 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whistling are is more common when dusky dolphins mingle with other dolphin species such as common dolphins.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dusky dolphin is listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals meaning that it has an "unfavourable conservation status" and may require international co-operation organised by tailored agreements. → The dusky dolphin is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, meaning that it has an "unfavourable conservation status" and may require international cooperation organised by tailored agreements.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an extra period at the end of the sentence brachy08 (chat here lol) 01:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are all properly licensed/free work. Missing ALT text tho
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. brachy08 (chat here lol) 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

overalls

  • Mostly a good read, will leave the source review to someone else. for now, you have my support.

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size

Drive-by comment

Gray classified D. superciliosus as a junior synonym of his D. obscurus. Gray doesn't mention a "junior synonym" - but when citing Lesson & Garnot he marks the reference with question marks. See:

  • Gray, J.E. (1844). "On the Cetaceous Mammals". In Richardson, John; Gray, John Edward (eds.). The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Erebus and Terror, Under the Command of Captain Sir James Clark Ross, During the Years 1839-43. Vol. 1: Mammals and Birds. London: E. W. Janson. pp. 13-53 [37].
  • Gray, J.E. (1850). Catalogue of Specimens of Mammals in the Collection of the British Museum. Part 1: Cetacea. London: Trustees of the Britsh Museum. pp. 107–108.

I take this to mean that without a physical type specimen Gray cannot be certain of its identity. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

I saw these in Kaikoura, one of my favourite places on earth, in 2011, along with a couple of sperm whales. Also seven albatross species among the many seabirds. I fixed a couple of obvious typos as I read. I can't see many major issues, but some nitpicks follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure in lead if "genetically" would be better preceding "very closely", leave it to you
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the most fit being able to catch her and reproduce.—not sure "with" is needed
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its size can vary between populations—varies
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • high amounts of immigration and emigration.—amounts looks odd, perhaps occurrence?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are generally coordinated hunters.—last subject mentioned was common fish species, so they isn't correct here
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3 Spicilegia Zoologica is correctly italicised on the book title page, so should be Roman in the otherwise italicised book title
I don't understand. Aa77zz? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the first page of Grey's text, he has "Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new or unfigured animals." with the Latin correctly italicised, and for good measure in the preamble that follows he mentions two other texts with Latin names, both italicised. The convention is that when text is italicised because it's a book or journal title, anything that's already in italics should be printed plain, so it should be "Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new or unfigured animals.". Similarly, if the species occurred in a publication title, it would be reversed to "dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) " Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 livraison, perhaps gloss at first use as (part)?
I don't understand. Aa77zz? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12, ref 34, genus should be in italics in both
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No other queries, will support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

I was more getting at maybe, "the [dusky] dolphin has 3 recognized subspecies: [A] found in [1], [B] found in [2], and [C] found in [3]" and it's implied that, since they're different subspecies and the locations are pretty far apart, the range of the species is discontinuous. Since subspeciation is probably the focal point of any discussion of the fragmentation in global distribution Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, (there may not be but) are there any ideas how the species got to all of these places if they don't travel across open ocean? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They did cross the open ocean in the distant past or they lived in the open ocean and became more and more adapted to coastal regions as this implies. LittleJerry (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under the current classification. dusky dolphins from Argentina are considered to be the same subspecies as ones from NZ but not Peru. So no, I cannot described the range based on subspecies. It would be disjoined. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should remove WoRMS as a source since it doesn't support the sentence Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But it was meant to be supplementary as it supports the other two. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems more than genetics is at play here, at least from what I'm gleaming from the article, since the dusky dolphin and Pacific white were placed into the same genus decades before population genetics became a mainstream idea. Is it that specifically these 2 species in the genus became understood as most closely allied because of genetics? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77? LittleJerry (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, real life got in the way Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then do you mean that they're moving to and from shore daily only during specific seasons? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but, for instance, the current characterization of dusky dolphin copulation is they only copulate in specific mating groups presumably during a breeding season, and it involves highly energetic foreplay, but in this source it says, "Outside the breeding season, sociosexual interactions among dusky dolphins are less frequent and often take on a 'lazy' quality" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah wait, I see it now, the text already does talk about sex outside a breeding season, though perhaps the sentences should be moved around. Right now it's right after a sentence about homosexual behavior so a reader might assume non-breeding sex is entirely homosexual Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But still, the source does expand quite a lot of dusky sociosexual behavior which is portrayed a little differently than in the article, at least in my perspective. Maybe read through it and add what you see fit? Or ignore it entirely if you believe it's more a fringe interpretation based on existing sources Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much that is new. I think the article already covers the most important aspects. What am I missing? LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added some. LittleJerry (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which have been called the most 'acrobatic' of the displays" sounds like 1 specific person said this, and seeing that the only other acrobatic display it's competing with is spins, this isn't too remarkable of a statement Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi {u|Dunkleosteus77}}, I am just checking to see if there will be more to come on this. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting on the leaning oppose above Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i was hoping you'd finish it and if you though it was good enough, that would maybe convince Jens to cross out her weak oppose. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Might be worth spelling out what cites.org is, instead of just giving the website name. There's some inconsistency in the identifiers, probably because there are multiple kinds of sources here. Have additional sources been evaluated? Nothing else that jumps out to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to fit the full name on there. It will look awkward. If you think there are sources that cover things I'm missing then point them out. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]