Template:Did you know nominations/Blue whale penis

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Mentoz86 (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Blue whale penis

(

)

~~... that the penis (pictured) of a blue whale is the largest of all penises?~~

ALT1:... that the length of a blue whale penis (pictured) is 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3.0 m) and one testicle weighs 100 pounds (45 kg)?
ALT2:... that the length of a blue whale penis (pictured) is 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3.0 m)?
Reviewed: Muhammad Sharif
Comment: When you are reading the history log, I just merely copy edited some words, like two or three.

Created/expanded by Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 13:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This nom is super premature, (so much for size..) I've barely just started it! I've invited my usual collaborators to join in..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was actually planning on a hook with Elephant penis including with it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry; we'll just add that subject here if created and long enough. --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - can you please use the convert template in the hook for those of us to whom feet and pounds are meaningless? Schwede 66 23:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have done most of the conversions but could not find a suitable template to convert imperial pint. It will be nice if you can suggest the template. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 05:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to comment - What a prick! Cbl62 (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I know that wiki is not censored. But is that applicable for main page also? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer needed now that article has stabilized. (Dr. Blofeld, if you still want to add that hook about the elephant, now would probably be a good time.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article (as I wrote Icelandic Phallological Museum, which I'm glad to see gets a mention). I have to say that there are some serious problems with the sourcing; I've removed a claim made on a very bad misinterpretation of a passage in a (possibly semi-fictional?) autobiography, and there are some other glaring mistakes which I've corrected, such as calling baculum a word for a penis (it's not, as clicking on the link will show). With this kind of sloppiness, frankly, there needs to be a thorough review of all of the sourcing in this article. I'll come back to this one but I would appreciate it if the author(s) could double-check the sourcing to make sure that their statements have been quoted accurately. Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, re Dharmadhyaksha's question, Icelandic Phallological Museum is planned to run as the Featured Article next Valentine's Day (on the grounds that dicks are most relevant to that day) so yes, the subject matter is OK for the Main Page. It's harmless enough. Prioryman (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"With this kind of sloppiness, frankly". Mmm, I think we'd better let this one pass...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I think it does have a good chance of passing, but there needs to be a close review of the sources to make sure that no more mistakes have crept in. Prioryman (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Could use another copyedit by an expert in phallicology... Maybe have it ready for World Penis Day?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Umm, is there such a thing or are you pulling my leg? :-) Prioryman (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Phallicologist or World Penis Day? Well, Japan exists, so probably both do, if you ever remember Tarrant on TV!♦ Dr. Blofeld

After two weeks with no work done on the article per the above and no further response here, I think this one has run out of time. Action could prove me wrong... BlueMoonset (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought I said "I think we'd better let this one pass" on 21 October? If you have problems with it, fix it, I still don't know exactly what is wrong with it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you double-checked the sources as requested? Prioryman notes a number of errors that he spotted and fixed, some serious, and asked for a close review. "I think we'd better let this one pass" is not clear: if it means, "I've checked and everything's fine" that's one thing, but if it means "I'm sure it's fine although I haven't checked, so let it pass" is quite another. If the former, then we get a new reviewer; if the latter, I don't think it addresses Prioryman's concerns, and we seem to be at an impasse. I'll ping him if it's the latter case. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

When Blofeld says "pass" I think he means a la Tolkien "Tree and flower, leaf and grass, let them pass, let them pass". Rich Farmbrough, 03:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

I'll be happy to do a second review.

In progress Anne (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Length and date fine. Original hook cited and correctly formatted. (I'd stay away from the specifics of the alts.) As I see it, the primary problem is the last section and photograph. While the photo indicates blue whale, the text of the source indicates sperm whale. Unless there's another source, I would eliminate the section and the photo (or at least not use the photo for DYK). Anne (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Researched this a little more tonight. Half the sources refer to it as sperm whale, the other half blue whale. Even a Reuters article referred to it as blue whale in the photo, but sperm whale in the text of the article. Anne (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to get some information from the Icelandic museum but did not get any reply to my e-mail so far. Hence, I have edited the article keeping the comments of various reviewers made here. I have also deleted the main photo in the article, as probably the photographer must have mentioned it as Blue Whale instead of Sperm Whale by mistake. The last section has also been modified. I hope it meets all the observations now. The revised hook proposed now without the picture is Alt 3 ... that the penis of a blue whale is the largest of all penises?--Nvvchar. 05:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with photo removal. Hopefully, the article is remedied already. --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs a new reviewer to check to see whether the issues have been addressed. To make it more visible, here's ALT3 above (the original hook without the "pictured", since the picture is gone) relisted at the left margin: BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that the penis of a blue whale is the largest of all penises?

I am seeing some close paraphrasing issues here. Specifically the phrase about Eskimos and an earlier phrase on blood flow and toughness appear to just be minor alterations of the sources. The source Conversations With Kurt Vonnegut appears to be rather inappropriate to use for the claim about commonly-reported averages. Given that it has been nearly two months and there are still these kinds of issues I think we should just kill it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)