- Previous peer review
I've taken this article to GA, and I would one day hope to carry this article to Featured Article status. I tried to implement as many of the recommendations once the article was delisted at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sei whale/archive1. Your feedback is much appreciated, and I'm prepared to return this to FA status. 20 upper (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)'[reply]
- I'll review this with FAC in mind soonish, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- FunkMonk I'm aborting this nomination because I recently discovered that Neil916 introduced copyright violations to a large part of this article many years ago. I appreciate your time, and I will find an article about cetaceans that hasn't been changed by this individual. In a short while, I'll also begin a GA reassessment. 20 upper (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, bad to hear. LittleJerry has worked on improving many of the other older whale FAs, perhaps he has some advice. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a good deal of WP:duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[1]
- No cladogram to add? If you have a source, you can request it at WP:treereq, or maybe there is one in another article.
- The paragraphs under Conservation status are very short, some could maybe be merged into larger paragraphs. Some other sections may also have this problem.
- The description seems unusually short.
- Those are not ideal either; most other whale FAs are as old as this one (nominated in the 00s before the FAC criteria were tightened up) before it was demoted. They should not be used as standards for future whale FAs, but we should set new standards to follow. Which means much more comprehensive regarding content, context, and sourcing. For the most recent cetacean FAC to follow, see South Asian river dolphin. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Will work on it. Ideally, it should take me a week to complete this article and nominate it at FAC.
- Seems our image selection isn't so great for this one, perhaps there is more on Flickr or INaturalist.
- But I definitely think you should show the skeleton, which we have here:[2]
- The text under Etymology could be rolled into the taxonomy section, which already goes into some names.
- The meaning of the scientific name could also be given.
- I found this[3] free underwater photo on Inaturalist, while small, it shows a unique view we don't have other photos of.
