# Talk:Dwarf sperm whale

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emillybarboza, Melisteph. Peer reviewers: Pggallag.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmarroquin12.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I will be adding more to the taxonomy section, diet, and behavior of the Dwarf sperm whale. 
I will also be adding a few sentences to their life cycle and the interaction they have with humans. 
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/dwarf-sperm-whale.html
http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Kogia_sima/
http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/rwb/kogiastat.pdf
https://mbr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41200-016-0064-z
Jmarroquin12 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Some of the information from the "description" could be added to the lead section because the lead section could use more information. The lead doesn't give a lot of information and doesn't touch on the topics that are written about later in the article. The article has a good structure and the order of the sections make sense. In the first sentence under the "human interaction" section, it is unclear what you mean by mortality. There is a good breadth of information included in this article and a neutral stance is maintained throughout.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pggallag (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dwarf sperm whale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Do we need two very similar images under behaviour? The upper one seems enough, the lower one adds no detail.
Lower one's a nice zoom-in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
But again, it adds no information (it's just a black silhouette), even fig. 4 from the same paper[1] would be more interesting to add. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
They're all just black silhouettes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
One image is practically identical to the other, the other isn't. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't put that on because I didn't see the whales until I read the caption, I thought it just was the surface of the water, it's not a very good picture   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Since there are few images in the article, you might want to add this Flickr photo of a skull:[2]
? FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
My eyes skipped this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
That "illustration" image looks very much like a museum model. Will ping Citron to find out whether this is true.
No it's definitely an illustration   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The uploader has many other images that are museum specimens/models with black background, which this looks like, but not much we can do unless they reply. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The map needs a source for the info in the description field on Commons.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
You link species name twice in a paragraph.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems there are a good deal of synonyms that should be listed in the taxobox. If the list gets too long, you can collapse it.
Added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
"He named it Physeter (Euphysetes) simus" Specify this is a subgenus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"though Hector did propose the genus Calignathus for the dwarf sperm whale" Why? And you should present that name earlier, seems it is from long before 1998, coined in  1871.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"The species name simus is Latin for "stump-nosed", a reference to its blunt snout." This should be moved up to where the naming of the animal is discussed.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"Genetic testing" When and by who?
added "...in 2006..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The IUCN info on population should be moved to the human interaction section, which should probably be renamed into something like "Threats and conservation", as in most other such articles.
Still not addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Why would a paragraph on population not be in the Population and distribution section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Then again, why do you need a section about "population" in the first place? Most other articles have a distribution/range section, and deal with population size under status. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I never liked those styles, it didn’t make sense why, if we’re already discussing distribution and range, to not also bring up population in the same place. They all seem to go well hand in hand, and I see where you’re coming with putting it in Threats, but I don’t agree   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
IUCN also says "Because this species was not generally recognized until the mid-1960s, there is still some confusion in the older literature about which species of Kogia is represented." You could elaborate here.
I really couldn't, it looks like they're talking about when the whale was recognized as its own species again and chose an article from 1960 that used Kogia simus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Then it seems you need to survey the relevant historical literature closer. It is not a good idea to just skate over something specifically highlighted by the UCN. If they find it important to mention in their otherwise brief text, it is important. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Dale quickly mentions them all in a sentence and moves on, I didn't think it was important and left it at, "various 20th century," bu they're there now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
"A newborn is around generally" Generally around sounds more natural.
In my experience they are the same   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you give me any example of a text written that way? It does not sound like proper English. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I say it around all the time, I hear other people say it, I'm kinda blanking on all the times I've seen the word "generally" in a sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem is not the word, it is the word order. "generally around" sounds more natural than "around generally". I have never seen anyone use that order in such a context. FunkMonk (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This is still an eyesore. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay well it's "generally around" now but I still don't see the problem. "Around generally" is perfectly fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
A Google search for that exact order found me nothing, but oh well. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
"Gestation takes places" Place.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"similar to chocolate syrup" I would add "physically similar".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"The Kogia are" A bit too esoteric, "the two species of Kogia" would be better.
Do I do that for all of them? That seems overly wordy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Then say "Kogia is", Kogia is not plural. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Why is there an entire see also section only for whale oil, which is mentioned nowhere in the article?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Diet is behaviour, so it may make more sense if you had a section called behaviour and ecology, which encompasses all the below, as in most other recognised modern animal articles.
I'm kinda trying to follow sperm whale but this is a markedly smaller article so it's not to a T   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Sperm whale became a GA ten years ago, and failed a FAC review, so it is not exactly the best standard to follow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
It didn’t fail because of organization   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Because it had so massive problems that I doubt that was the first issue that came to mind for the reviewers. In any case, that article is simply not up to modern standards, the structure is nonsensical, so it won't fly. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
It didn't fail because it didn't have a combined Behavior and Ecology section, it failed because of all the cn tags, and a lot of cetacean articles sort like this, like bottlenose dolphin, killer whale, humpback whale, fin whale   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I will return to the review once this has been fixed. It really shouldn't come as a surprise that we should hold up articles to recent standards, not ten year old demoted articles. A lot has happened since 2008, when those articles became GAs (some of them were even promoted back in 2004 and 2006, and certainly wouldn't today). This is a fail/pass threshold. You should instead take a look at more recent whale GAs, such as pilot whale or Porpoise, which has a structure much more like other recently promoted animal articles. Feeding behaviour is both behaviour and ecology, so it makes no sense to arbitrarily list it in either such section. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Well if your problem is with the structure of current GA’s, I’ll point you to false killer whale which got there 10 days ago. There’s absolutely no problem separating behavior from ecology, and it’s definitely not a reason for failing. Certain stylistic approaches aren’t anything so terrible as you’re making it out to be. Article organization preferences are different from editor to editor, and that’s okay. Not all articles will be structured exactly the same, and that’s okay. So long as a reader can look at a table of contents and find what they need to find, we’re all okay, and so long as they can see that Ecology is a different section than Behavior, which they can, then everything is okay. There is no confusion, people are smarter than you let them on to be, and it’s no more difficult to navigate than your preferred organization   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:other stuff exists is not an argument, though. A GA review is supposed to point an article in a direction that will improve it. The structure in the newer GAs I pointed to makes more sense than the decade old articles you have based earlier structure on, and it is objectively worse because it is more arbitrary. I will have to ask for a second opinion then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The IUCN says its status "may span a range from Least Concern to a more threatened category", which should be mentioned.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


#### Second opinion from Chiswick Chap
Ok, well, let's take this in stages. The article's current structure does not seem to me to be so poor that it could fail on that account: the species eaten, like predation (what eats it) and disease (what infects it) are certainly aspects of 'Ecology', and those relationships are not 'Behavior'. On the other hand, I'd agree with FunkMonk that there is potential overlap between ecology and behavior — between say the species that are preyed upon and the feeding behavior required to catch them — just as there is between the species eaten and the anatomy (pointy teeth, say) and physiology (stomach acid, enzymes) needed to process them, though the topics are logically distinct. I would say, therefore, that it is a pragmatic matter for each article that editors decide on the most sensible division of the material. We cannot always merge all of the feeding anatomy, feeding physiology, feeding behavior, and ecology materials into one section; nor must we always treat them separately. 
In this case an Ecology-and-behavior section would not be absurdly long, and the anatomy is already merged into 'Diet' (so that section would be better named 'Feeding' as teeth and jaws certainly aren't part of Diet). There doesn't seem to be any mention of feeding physiology here, which is fine with me. The 'Behavior' section, however, has only part of one paragraph (the second) about feeding, so it isn't an ideal merge target. Personally, I'd leave the structure as it is; if editors prefer to move the feeding bit of 'Behavior' into the current 'Diet' section and rename that 'Feeding', I'd consider that a sensible compromise. 
All of this seems rather touchy-feely to me: it isn't a case of hard-and-fast application of an obvious bit of policy. I'm sure you're both experienced enough to reach a sensible compromise on this one. Good luck. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, might have to bring it up again if this ends up at FAC. Not as important at GAN anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
So's there anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
"and it is possible the best-developed" Possibly.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
"Toothed whales calves" No need for plural in "whale" here.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
"The dwarf sperm whale also competes with other squid-eating whales, such as beaked whales. It occupies the same ecological niche in the same regions as the pygmy sperm whale, though the latter can forage in deeper waters and has been known to feed on a wider array of species of larger size." What does any of this have to do with the section "Predation and disease"?
Two things can happen: I rename the section “Predation, parasitism, and competition” or “Other relations”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
A third thing can happen: you can move that info to the diet section, since it pertains to its feeding behaviour. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I just did the second one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
That is so vague as to be meaningless, though. Again, look at what other promoted articles have done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It’s a subheading of Ecology so it’s not as vague as you’re letting on. I can switch it to Other interactions if that’s somehow less vague. There aren’t subsections in false killer whale, it looks like pilot whale skips this, narwhal puts Predation as a subheading of Lifespan and mortality, and those’re the GA species articles from the last 5 years   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
In all those other cases, the title names alone give some indication of what can be found in the sections; "other relations" can't stand alone, and the reader has no idea what it is supposed to include. Either you need to be more specific, or move the info. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I guess the technical term is a limiting factor   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay so the section's now called "Limiting factors"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I doubt most readers would understand what that's supposed to mean. “Predation, parasitism, and competition” was the best of your options above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
"which it may have led to the stranding itself." Odd wording.
I think you and I have different ideas of English   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh wait, my eyes skipped over the “it”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, let's break down the full sentence: "In the southeastern United States, stranded dwarf sperm whales were found to have died from heart failure, which it may have led to the stranding itself." I don't think you need to be a professor in English to see that "it" is misplaced and unecessary. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
"instead of lifting their tails out of the water to dive which would create a splash." Needs comma before "which".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
" can eject a red-brown fluid" From where, and what does it consist of?
already discussed in Description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
"It is more threatened by marine debris" You need to explain why in the intro, and entanglement seems equally important from reading the rest of the article.
Entanglement from marine debris, and added in the lead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Still a couple of issues left. FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I think this should be good enough for GA now, so passed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunate lack of sources for the first bit of this article - so there are no references (at all) until halfway through the first section on this page. I don’t know how to do the little citation needed superscript, but I would definitely put it on the assertion that Kogia was thought to be the same animal until 1998. Reference 16, “Status of the Dwarf Sperm Whale, Kogia Simus…” published 1998, clearly provides (in the first paragraph, mind you) two dates, 1833 & 1866, which refer to papers written that clarify the two (breviceps & simus respectively)as distinct subspecies of Kogiidae. Since it comes from a peer-reviewed article that has already been accepted as accurate enough for other references within the same article, I think the part about the subspecies not being differentiated until 1998 (!) needs to be removed.
Vindafarna (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The lead doesn't require references since it's a summary of the rest of the article, per MOS:LEADCITE. Most other articles follow the same convention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)