Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Right whale

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Right whale

edit

Self-nom, and a first one in absolute age from me. Hope I haven't forgotten how to do these :). Pcb21 Pete 12:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment for now an interesting read I'll be back for a more detailed look in the next day or two, at first glance I would like to see a source quoted for the number of whales left 300,200 and 7500 appear out of balance I would have expected the southern right to be less than that figure closer to 2000, base on the media reporting in Australia. Gnangarra 13:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the IWC Scientific Committee, I've add some more information about that. Perhaps 2000 refers to the number that calve in Australisian waters? Sounds a plausible number... Pcb21 Pete 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any external links? Also, citations commonly follow the punctuation,[1] like this.[2] Probably no need for bold text outside the first sentence of the lead. Don't forget to use & nbsp; in the units (I did a couple already). I'll be back for a more thorough read shortly. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are external links but they are formatted as references. Is there anything in particular you'd like to see linked?
Hopefully someone will beat me to changing the punctation/ref order, but I will do that if they don't.
I think i've fixed all of them, not sure what to do when references are in the middle of the sentence. Suicidalhamster 19:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. That's a great help. Pcb21 Pete 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like to highlight redirectee terms, even if it is not appropriate for them to appear in the lead section.
Finally I've change to use the non-breaking spaces where appropriate. Thanks Pcb21 Pete 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I did a few copyedits for spelling and word choice; I hope you don't mind. Also, you probably should be consistent with the capitalization of "right whale" versus "Right Whale" -- I think it should be uncapitalized. --Elkman - (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary, I am very pleased to have your help. The capitalisation should already follow our "animal species rules" - that is the species names are capitialized but nothing else is. So we write "The Southern Right Whale is" but "The right whales are...". I will check that everything conforms to this when I do a run through once I've collected a few more comments. Thanks again for your help. Pcb21 Pete 17:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the capitalisation looks to be in line with policy. Pcb21 Pete 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's up with the purple infobox under Population and distribution today? --Osbus 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added it in response to Spangineer's request for a source re Southern Right numbers. What do you think of it? Pcb21 Pete 21:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unorthodox...is there a way to incorporate those facts into the article? --Osbus 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They could be sure, though I think the overall flow is better with it separated out. Pcb21 Pete 22:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the box it a good way to present the format used for the calculation of numbers Gnangarra 00:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and by the way, I'm also a fan of the box. It is unorthodox, but it provides a place for some useful information that would otherwise be very awkward to fit in. Not something we should go overboard with, but I like the way it works in this article. --RobthTalk 03:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do rather like the box as well. It's the sort of thing we'd probably do more of if we were in print - it's unusual, but we shouldn't be scared of it. Shimgray | talk | 18:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now. This is good, but several things need to be sorted out. I changed some phrasing here and there and commented out a couple of sentences that seemed unneccesary or out of place.
    • The taxonomy section is slightly confusing in layout. It sounds, from reading the whole article, like the three species view has currently gained acceptance, and the 1/2/3 species dispute is largely historical; if this is the case, it should be made clear earlier in the section, since, as it is written now, it sounds like the dispute is ongoing.
    • I don't have time to give it a full copyedit right now, but someone should. The prose is good for the most part, but there are a number of clunky lines sprinkled throughout the text.
    • There are a few statements that could use footnotes. Among them:
      • "Morphological factors such as small differences in the skull shape of northern and southern animals have tended to lend support to the two species view."
      • "By 1937, using conservative estimates, there had been 38,000 takes in the South Atlantic, 39,000 in the South Pacific, 1,300 in the Indian Ocean and 15,000 in the north Pacific."
      • "It is possible that these are the remains of a virtually extinct eastern Atlantic stock but examination of old whalers records suggest that they are more likely to be strays from the western stock."
Other than these things, this looks good, and I'll be happy to support once those are taken care of. --RobthTalk 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback Robth:
I have amended taxonomy section to make things clearer.
I have references for the three things you suggested. The density of references is rather high now, but we could add more if you think it is necessary.
Re copyediting. You actually did more copyediting than you give yourself credit for and I am grateful for the improvements. Are there any particular still "clunky" sections that I can improve before attracting your support? Pcb21 Pete 08:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy looks good now. Same for citations--I don't think there's any need to add a whole bunch of new footnotes, but those particular statements seemed to me to be the sort that ought to be sourced. As far as copyediting, the problem isn't so much with specific sections as with a few recurring phrasing issues. Passive voice is a little overused, and there are some awkward uses of "because" and "although"/"though"; pronoun-antecedent issues cropped up at a few points (although I may have gotten most of these when I went through). If nobody else gets there first, I'll try to give this another look when I have some time. --RobthTalk 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again Rob. I've done a further edit on top of yours [1]. I have reduced sentence complexity and reduced the use of the passive voice. Hope that helps, Pcb21 Pete 16:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I think the rational for keeping it is that it is the only image we have of the Southern Right Whale (that section also has one image of the North Pacific Right Whale, and several of the North Atlantic Right Whale - these could perhaps be thinned down a little, but I am not sure which one I would more or remove.) It would be nice to (a) have a better image of the Southern Right Whale and/or (ii) move a few of the images elsewhere in the article (I have already moved the propeller casualty to "Conservation", but, for example, that one could go in the "Whale watching" section...). In fact, I have just found some in Commons:Category:Cetacea. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that image was there because it is the only one of the southern species. I am not seeing this overcrowding issue (actually the opposite now that the pics are down to 250px). What screen resolution was the original commentator observing the page at? Pcb21 Pete 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Right_whale&oldid=1082507433"