Wikipedia:Featured article review/Humpback Whale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Humpback Whale

Message left at WikiProject Cetaceans cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The good thing is that Blue Whale, Sei Whale and Fin Whale are all featured and provide a good model to re-format the Humpback Whale page. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - the article needs a description of the animal as a priority. Pretty basic really. The other 3 articles have a taxonomy section too. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• I see a problem with the very small number of sources. Most of the material is unsourced--Sefringle 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I as the author of the originally FAed article can vouch that it was all sourced from sources given. Any newer material... well I didn't write it so it is not for me to say. Pcb21 Pete 22:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

PS: Pete, can you see anything else missing? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

OK, if anything sticks out as simple and easy to fix, I for one would appreciate it. I think this is readily saveable, especially with the other whales as templates and the work done already.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)