Wikipedia:Featured article review/Blue whale/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 08:31, 9 July 2007.

Blue whale edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at User talk:Pcb21 and Cetaceans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the low number of references in this article; in particular there are at least two sections which are entirely unreferenced. Regrettably, therefore, as this aside it's an excellent article, I'd like to put it up for FAR. Hopefully the problem will be quite easy to fix. SP-KP 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify editors and related WikiProjects. See the instructions on top of the FAR page. Quadzilla99 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which two sections are unreferenced? --maclean 05:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description and behaviour is one, first para of Size, ~~Feeding~~, first para of Life history, and The hunting era has only 1. it also has a See also section which would be good to incorporate into the body of the articel. Overall I feel this is a much easier job than the overhaul we gave Humpback Whale recently, but depends on the interest and availablility of the ususal suspects methinks. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- As far as I can see, references on such an important and well-known topic should be fairly easy to locate, so I don't think there will be much problem fixing the problem posed by SP-KP, nor anything to worry about. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 07:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update work is underway. The LEAD has been expanded to summarise the article (which it didn't) and some refs have been added. I note there is also a whole odd Blue Whale conservation article which isn't really summarised...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Update - number of refs has doubled from 18 to 36. More sections cited.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cas -- the refs are coming along very well now. Just a few more and we should have satisfied the concerns. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 12:55, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Comment It's coming on OK, but some of the size descriptions are terrible. We need to find some proper measurements rather than have its heart which is "almost the same size as a small car" be forced to push babies through its veins, while 50 humans stand on its elephant-sized tongue in its small garage sized mouth and try to push a beach ball down its throat. Also, how do we know about Linnaeus' sense of humour? Yomangani ^talk 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was wondering where that came from. It's right but unless it came from somewhere starts to veer into OR territory. Some of the comparison sizes I don't mind but some numbers would be good. The government action plans tend to avoid making such frivolous comparisons.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with Yomangani on this one. It is not encyclopaedic (at least, in this context) to refer to other objects when alluding or describing size. Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 11:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was musing on this - tried looking for refs for Blue whale heart size (one of those valuable pieces of info we all need to know) and couldn't find dimensions but a alot of comparisons with Volkswagons etc. I know its not formal but it does give a very vivid and clear image of how big the thing actually is. Ultimately I guess I'm saying the heart car sentence is fine by me in an FA if no dimensions are actually available, similarly tongue elephant an throat beach ball. However, I'm not fussed and will go with consensus cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So - a report? How is this FAC coming? How can I further help? Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see Yomangani's done some more bits and pieces. For mine, it's over the line though I am easier to please than some other folks 'round here. How do you feel about it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paragraph on the subspecies needs some expansion as it's an extremely cursory and incomplete overview at the moment (some pieces from the Pygmy Blue Whale article might help here) and there are still some statistics in the size subsection that need citations. Yomangani ^talk 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a significant problem with the "spin-off" article Blue Whale conservation. That article has two sections - "illegal whaling" and "climate change". The first section appears to be complete nonsense. Blue Whales are almost never caught - the Japanese take the odd Fin Whale and maybe possibly might mistake a Blue for a Fin, but that would be rare. The whole section seems to be written under the mis-conception that a "whale"="blue whale". It should be junked. That leaves with the climate change section. I am not sure whether this section is true or not... it is certainly speculative. My recommendation would be to merge the best of that section into the main article and then redirect. The main article itself seems pretty good, and better than when it was originally featured. Pcb21 Pete 22:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the subpage. Was musing on nominating it for deletion as it was extremely general in nature. OK, suggested fixes could be accomplished relatively quickly. Let's go then. Anyone have a reference book handy? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that has been taken care of, though now looking at the added Conservation bit some of it might be veering into OR territory (?).

I think Blue Whale conservation should redirect more specifically: rather than just blue whale, perhaps into a section of blue whale? Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need Blue Whale conservation as a redirect at all. It is an unlikely search term and the only pages that link to it are internal process pages like article assessment and this review. I'll delete it unless anybody has a burning reason to keep it. Yomangani ^talk 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say should redirect more specifically, for the record. And Im not sure Yomangani - I can see some knowledgeable-on-fauna (? lol) people looking up conservation of Blue Whales. Then again, it is pretty left field... Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting it so I guess an AfD is in order..... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call me old-fashioned but we NEVER used to delete these sorts of redirects. There is no downside to keeping such a redirect, and we presevere the history of the contributed work by keeping it. An AfD just creates busy work for everyone.

I'm not really sure why I suggested deleting it (probably was think about something else), but the point was that it doesn't matter where it redirects to in the article as there are no links to it anyway.Yomangani ^talk 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the Recovery Plan, which mentions a few hazards but the bulk of what we have now (warming/altering of currents etc.) isn't mentioned so given that I was musing on we should do with material that is currently unreferenced. How long do we give ourselves to do it/find stuff? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is references. Marskell 07:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know this has seen extensive work. It's been six weeks in the review section, so just moving things along. If it's ready for keep, we can keep it now. Marskell 07:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it has been brought to standard. Yomangani ^talk 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks for doing the last little bit. I'm glad we bit the bullet and brought back the conservation stuff and sorted it out. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything a Wikipedia article should be. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 16:44, 9 July 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.