Wikipedia:Featured article review/Right whale/archive1

Right whale edit

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary edit

A number of editors have pointed out on the talk page an inconsistency in this article: the article intro states that there are four species of Right Whales, while the majority of the rest of the article refers to three species. A knowledgable editor should resolve this. Outriggr 01:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a spruce-up of the prose is in order:

The lead: ambiguous "finally" and redundant "geographically". "During the active years of the whaling industry"—why not give us a chronological idea if you're going to raise this?

Then: "After many years of shifting views on the number of right whale species, recent genetic evidence has led scientists in the field to conclude that there are in fact four distinct species." Two two parts of the sentence don't seem to be logically relate (population versus number of species).

"Today the species still stands alone in its own genus as it has done since the work of Gray in 1821." What, before Gray's work it didn't?

"Thus, it is likely that all four species will be placed in one genus in some future review." "Some"?

I'm wondering whether a major review would be more appropriate. Tony 02:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Tony. The prose needs some clean-up, yes, though that's true of almost every article here. However, this article is unclear about the very topic it purports to discuss. The article on Right Whale ought to, at bare minimum, make it clear exactly what a Right Whale is, and this article doesn't do that. If the issue really is unresolved by marine biologists, then we need to state the current state of events, the past misunderstandings if relevent, and other hypotheses as needed. I would vote to remove under a FARC unless this can be cleaned up. Matt Deres 16:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff in the almost two weeks since it was placed for minor review [1]: time for major review. Sandy 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk message left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals Sandy 20:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans. Sandy 22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marine life. Sandy 23:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Not a single edit since this article was moved to major review (when the processes were separate). Criterion 2a is at issue, including the nominator's query at the top. Tony 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not an expert, but I have tried to address these issues. It seems clear to m that "right whale" is used primarily to refer to the three species in the genus Eubalaena, which is what this article concentrates upon, but the term can also refer to the fourth species, which has its own "main article" at Bowhead Whale. However, the Bowhead Whales needs to be discussed briefly in this article for completeness. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message left at User_talk:Outriggr. Sandy 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. (Thank you for the message, Sandy.) In addition to the prose concerns listed by others, the original concern remains, and is highlighted by sentences like these two, which are one paragraph apart:
- "...recent genetic evidence has led scientists in the field to conclude that there are four distinct species of right whale, in two genera."
- "...There is, however, little genetic evidence to support this two-genera view."

The article's approach to the four-species/three-species issue does not seem clear to me. Outriggr 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my reading is that there is genetic evidence for 4 distinct species, but the number of genera is not so clear. To quote more extensively: "recent genetic evidence has led scientists in the field to conclude that there are four distinct species of right whale, in two genera" ... "The Bowhead Whale is clearly an individual species ... The remaining three species are classified together in a separate genus. There is, however, little genetic evidence to support this two-genera view" ... "it seems likely that all four species will be placed in one genus in a future review." ... "In dealing with the three populations of Eubalaena right whales, authorities have historically disagreed over whether to categorize the three populations in one, two or three species." [concluding that there is sufficient evidence for three]. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four species-two genera, seems clear to me. Several editors, including myself have made copyedits. --Maintain 06:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not clear where the article decided that the Bowhead Whale is no longer among its subjects. We still have this, for example:
  - "Today, the three right whale species inhabit three distinct areas of the globe..."
  - "The four right whale species live in distinct locations..."
- No one has actually explained how the sentences I mentioned above are not contradictory. Is there genetic evidence for two genera or not?:
  - "...recent genetic evidence has led scientists in the field to conclude that there are four distinct species of right whale, in two genera."
  - "...There is, however, little genetic evidence to support this two-genera view."
- I have no desire to see this article de-frocked. If these are "just" mistakes in wording, then they can be changed easily enough, but I am not in a position to judge that. Outriggr 07:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just wording that can be clarified. My understanding is that the genetic evidence relates to the separation into species, not into genera (that comma was quite important, but I have separated into two paragraphs for clarity). I think the article is talking about all four species, up to the point where is says that the Bowhead Whale is in a different genus, and refers to its own article for further details). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more commentary by other Wikipedians. (There was earlier a significant contingent of concern regarding the FA-worthiness of this article.) Failing that, the decision can be left in the hands of a wise administrator, whom I expect to be conservative and not de-feature the article. That's OK with me. Outriggr 03:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see more commentary - better, input - from other Wikipedians. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demote If there's this much debate, article should go back through FAC to ensure a high FA standard. --jwanders^Talk 13:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]