Wikipedia:Featured article review/Humpback Whale/archive1
- 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 10:25, 25 April 2007.
- Message left at WikiProject Cetaceans cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues that need to be fixed: 1a/2a) The lead is not brilliant, and the excess of numbers and parentheses makes the section hard to read. 1c) The article is severely short of references; there are only two inline citations. 2b) The sections are a bit out of order, in my opinion. For example, the "Threats Beyond Hunting" section could follow "Whaling" in order to establish a smoother flow. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see some issues here, lack of comprehensiveness first and foremost. Information about the species itself (reproduction, taxonomy...) is underweighted compared to its interactions with humans (whalewatching, whaling, trivia). MOS problems include external jumps, too many external links, unnecessary redlinks, and unitalicized species name(s). Also contains a burgeoning and useless trivia section. These can be fixed easily, but comprehensiveness is a biggie. –Outriggr § 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Problems with WP:LEAD, WP:MSH, and external links (WP:EL, WP:NOT, pruning needed). Footnotes aren't formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). Popular culture has stubby sentences. Is this a citation, or what? The ingestion of saxitoxin, a PSP (paralytic shellfish poison) from contaminated mackerel has been implicated in humpback whale deaths.[Marine Mammal Medicine, 2001] External jumps—examples A photographic catalogue of all known whales in the North Atlantic was developed over this period and is today maintained by Wheelock College (here). and Some scientists (see Mercado). Lots to be done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I got the LEAD into two paras now and it sorta summarises the article, though it desperately needs a description subsection...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a problem with the very small number of sources. Most of the material is unsourced--Sefringle 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly somehow a major chunk of description got deleted some time after FA-hood. There is now some activity on the saving front. Makes me wonder about some form of semi-protection for FAs as a first step to article stability.....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreal. Good job, whoever restored it. It amuses me that there is now a poll unprecedented in size about the semantics of attribution policy, yet no one in a leadership role offers any indication that they care about protecting (that's the "meatspace" version of the word "protect") what we're hypothetically here to do: build comprehensive articles. (So if I ever get Auguste Rodin to FA, it's still only as good as my watchlist. Enticing prospect. One really needs to be a Buddhist here.) –Outriggr § 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I realized a couple of days ago that an entire section of Blue Whale had gone missing for over seven months. Although I don't blame the poll for this particular problem. Kla'quot 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PPS: It was promoted to FA on June 29 2004, at which point it had 6 references. I wasn't around then but I don't think inline refs weren't a prerequisite for Featured Articles at the time. Pete, it would be great if you could inline the points which came from the refs, and consderably facilitate it passing this FAR. A great read by the way, I don't see it as too hard to streamline this one through. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes things have changed a lot since this was promoted, including my greatly reduced participation in the project. I think a full-retro fit will be a lot of work that I (to be honest) won't have time for/could be bothered with :-/. If there were one or two key things that needed a specific ref I could take a look, but if the ref requirements have got still more onerous, maybe we should look at de-FAing it. P.s. thank you for the great work on improving the article that you've done recently. Pcb21 Pete 07:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there plans to finish up the work soon, or should it move to FARC for additional time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, we're getting there. I've been doing quite a bit of sprucing it up and alerted Yomangani who did great stuff reviving Platypus so we too are it I think. If you compare current with the date of starting, I'd guess we're about 2/3rds the way there. Realisticially I think we can get it up to scratch in another 7 days. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: [[1]] the difference if you an decipher it. Someone had also deleted the description somewhere along the way a few months ago....
- I'm on it too. The article has improved tremendously, however I have to agree comprehensiveness is still lacking, particularly w.r.t. conservation. Is there a deadline? Kla'quot 05:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The conservation section has been expanded. I see no major deficiencies in terms of comprehensiveness. We're getting crazily differing estimates from the sources on the current Humpback population; the numbers are a mess. It might take a few days to get that sorted out. However I'm sure the vast bulk of the rework has been done. The article was really horrible when it arrived here. Kla'quot 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No-one came back to me with any particular items they wanted sourced (see above) and re-reading the article I don't think there's anything that stands out as dodgy. In fact the article better is now than when originally featured. Of course standards for qualification have risen a lot, but still it probably deserves to stay. Thanks very much to all those who worked on it. Pcb21 Pete 09:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pete the biggest hole I can see is the issue of migration and disparity between quoted values. A recent reference I got into the text has a migration range a bit smaller than 25000km... Anything that could clarify or serve as a reference would be much appreciated cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That section of population and distribution might also need to be expanded a bit, but otherwise i think this article fully merits featured status. As far as the aforementioned section goes, I have already got to work on expanding it a little bit. --- ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status: How do people feel about this one? Notice some work done. Marskell 14:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think this one is over the line by now, though I have to admit I am more of a "near enough is good enough" sorta guy than a perfectionist, so I'll be more interested to see what others feel. Sandy? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: External links have been pruned, the article tells a reasonable story about population figures, and I'm in the process of expanding the lead and doing a general copyedit and fact check. Should be done by this weekend. If anyone can lend a hand, that would be great. Kla'quot 05:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it's up to snuff now. Yomanganitalk 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think all problems have been addressed. The article looks solid to me. Kla'quot 17:27, 24 April 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.