Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sperm Whale/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 11:17, 19 April 2008.

Sperm Whale[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans and User:Pcb21. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is poorly written and referencing is not FA standard. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think to justify a bloody review you`re going to need a little more than 11 words. 69.11.113.79 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK then:
Ecology, behaviour and life history section has a [citation needed] tag in the middle of it. In fact it has no inline refs in the section at all
The longer Feeding section has a ref, but also 2 [citation needed] tags
Diving and breathing could do with a few refs
Conservation section - no refs
Referencing could be a bit more robust WRT completing citation bits

Prose isn't too bad but theres' enough to go on above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • References in general could use some improving, there is an over-reliance on some rather substandard ones. There is plenty of information on this species avaliable and it shouldn't be too hard to bring this one up to standard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I'll list the problems here, since that is what this space is for.
  1. intro is a bit light, needs to summarise the whole article. Seems to meander around touching on a lot of cultural stuff (not really dealt with lower on) , a bit about whaling (again hardly dealt with below, and only mentioning the Azores), with little about its biology
  2. The section that begins Sperm whales are a prime example of a species that has been K-selected, a reproductive strategy associated does not belong in the description section, instead belongs in an as yet uncreated breeding section
  3. The sperm whale is exceptional for its very large head, particularly in males, which is typically one-third of the animal's length. Is a terrible first line for the description section, it should start with something like The Sperm Whale is a lrgae (measurements) whale etc etc etc
  4. The section starting The sperm whale holds some natural world records: followed by a numbered list - is this really FA-ish? This should get broken up and the facts inserted into the appropriate sections of the article
  5. According to a 2003 National Geographic article, sperm whales are said to be the loudest of all animals ("about as loud as a rifle shot three feet from your ear"). What is an important fact is dlivered in a very trivia-ish fashion. Possibly a section on Sperm Whale song/communication? Actually, I notice that is mentioned in two other places, one in the numbered list and again in feeding.
  6. Distribution needs at least one citation.
  7. Taxonomy and naming section - overlong quote and insufficient information given on evolutionary history. Should probably be split into taxonomy and evolution in the one hand and etymology in the other.
  8. In the news - trivia-ish. Considering the importance culturally of this species we need more in here.
  9. The species is rendered sperm whale and Sperm Whale inconsistently, this needs to be regularised. I notice that it has been moved back and forth a bit in the edit history, so one should get picked.
  10. Feeding needs some reorganisation, interactions with fisheries seems to be covered twice
  11. See also section needs to die in a fire. All those links are dealt with in the article anyway.
  12. External links could use a prune.
  13. There are some statements made of dubious veracity , for example Sperm whales live for up to 80 years. is contradicted by [1], and another about stunning prey which is flat wrong (and I removed and cited why). A thorough check of many claims (including those backed up by dubious cites) is needed
  14. History of whaling section needed, as well as current hunting status
  15. Section on accidents composed entirely of In March 2007, a Japanese fisherman drowned after his boat was capsized by a panicked sperm whale he was trying to rescue. The whale had wandered into the relatively shallow waters in a bay in Shikoku - seems trivia-ish, could probably go. If no one objects it's out.
  16. Maximum depth seems to be variously given as 2000, 2200 and 3000 m. Only one of them can be right. I'll do some research.

Anything else? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing improved a bit but still not FA standard. The article is still poorly written and poorly organised. It will go to FARC soon, so consider this a "Remove", and so I will file another FAR.--Kaypoh (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Sperm_Whale/archive1&oldid=1088203376"