GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | This ambitious article was barely ready for GAN at the time of submission, being over-long, doubtfully focused on the topic through confusion with the closely-related Cetacea, unconventionally organized, unreliably sourced, and with rather weak coverage especially of the human aspects. All of these aspects have been markedly improved during the GA process and the article is now clearly up to GA standard. It will require very considerable further work to approach FA nomination; some suggestions are given below, and reviewers can be expected to pay close attention to systematic referencing and the history of the topic, among other things. There remain many related articles in need of reorganization and referencing, including articles on groups of whales, whaling, and lists of whale taxa. Since most of these focus on only one aspect (taxonomy or history, for example), they should prove less complex than the current article, which can reasonably be described as a whale of a topic. So, well done. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) |
Please check for dead links such as Nanuq (Cetacousin). There may be archived pages which can be linked. Otherwise they'd best be replaced.
There are several blogs used as sources, eg. Jessica Hullinger's 7 Fascinating Facts about Narwhals or Lord Geekington's Two Finned Dolphin. These are not considered Reliable Sources unless the author is demonstrably an authority on a topic. Similarly, a conspiracy fiction author like C. R. Berry can be presumed not to be reliable by profession and should not be used. The use of Wikia sites such as for Cryptid Whales is not satisfactory; these uncertified tertiary sources are, like Wikipedia, not assured to be reliable. Please check each doubtful site/blog use (not only these examples) and either justify it with evidence that it is reliable or replace it.
The tone of comments such as "(since they can't chew)" is too colloquial for a global encyclopedia, and the parentheses aren't ideal either. Something along the lines of "because they are unable to chew" would be more appropriate. Please check the article for remarks in similar style.
Please expand every usage of abbreviated words like "they're, can't" and "don't" (for example to "they are", "can not" and "do not").
Please ensure that every web page cited has an accessdate. It may be wise to archive some of these.
The use of lists in text articles is one of the GA criteria which calls for some caution; lists are not forbidden but they are problematic all the same. We need to ask here why we should enumerate the species of baleen and toothed whales at all, given that these are listed already in
List of whale species, they all have their own articles, and the families can all be navigated to via the taxobox. Further, there is already an article on the whole order,
Cetacea, which is monophyletic and therefore a good taxon. This points up an awkward fact: "Whale" is not a taxon at all, but a
paraphyletic grouping selected by size from the cetacea. Finally, even if this was a proper taxon, the normal treatment for an Order-sized article is to describe the Families it contains, with one or two examples of interesting genera or species, rather than attempting to describe everything that's covered by subsidiary articles. Therefore, I suggest, and I know this is a bit of a wrench, but there it is.
1) please make it clear that whales are paraphyletic, and that for taxonomy readers should go to Cetacea and to its included families.
2) include a diagram like the one at the top of
Paraphyly showing the relationship of whales and dolphins and porpoises. (This is not mandatory but would be wise and helpful).
3) remove both lists, replacing them with a brief paragraph on each suborder, and if you wish with a word or two on each family within the suborders. I'd suggest the resulting section should contain two short subsections, each with a single image, i.e. one baleen and one toothed whale image. The family descriptions should briefly say what is distinctive about them as families, so - baleen, filter feeding, many of large size; toothed, fish/squid (etc) diet. If you are sorry for the material, much of it might find a home in
List of whale species.
4) For the Extinct genera, the main link to the
List of extinct cetaceans is sufficient. Please remove the three boxed lists. These are redundant with the main list (or if not, they are in error), and not helpful to the general reader wanting to know about "whales" - if they are needed anywhere, it would be in
Cetacea, not here.
5) Again, there is no justification for the coverage of
Archaeocetes in this article to be more detailed per species than in the main article on that topic, so please remove the list as undue. I suggest a single paragraph supported by perhaps two images (say,
Pakicetus and
Ambulocetus to give the general idea).
6) the taxobox is somewhat misleading, and could be said to be actually wrong in this context, making the whales look monophyletic, when they aren't a taxon at all. If you want to keep the taxobox, it ought to show and specifically exclude
Delphinidae and
Phocoenidae, but since orcas and belugas are also
Delphinoidea, a diagram showing the exclusions would frankly be better. My preference would be to remove the taxobox. There is actually a simpler taxobox in
Cetacea, which is the relevant taxon here.
The existing cladogram is very beautiful but somewhat off-topic, as it shows (much) too much detail of ruminants, pigs, camels and horses, and fails to make clear which cetaceans are whales - I can see Delphinidae but not Phocoenidae, for instance; and we don't need so much detail on the fossil groups either.
There are no fewer than 3 sections named toothed whales (and similarly for baleen): ""Odontocetes" in Taxonomy, but the section actually covers anatomy, sonar, habitat, coloration, and feeding as well as taxonomy; "Toothed or Baleen" in Evolution, which also covers quite a bit of taxonomy; and then Species. I suggest you have exactly one section on each suborder, with a {{main|}} link to the relevant article. Currently the Whale article is trying to cover not only every whale species but full details of each suborder, which what subsidiary articles are for.
In contrast, the Anatomy, Life history and behaviour, and Ecology are correctly focused on whales as a group.
Perhaps the bible's "Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook?" deserves a mention.
The section needs to say a little more about Moby Dick's nature as it is central to the novel and indeed to American culture.
The section needs to say something about whales in the fine arts, e.g.
William Duke
Oswald Brierly
Thevet 1574 - indeed, the Thevet image would go well in the history of whaling section.
The history up to say 1900 should be in a section named History; the current Conservation and history looks quite recentist (prominent dates are 2013 and 2008), so the historical element is obscured. The history should briefly describe how and where whales were hunted; how they were processed; what they were used for; and which countries were largely involved. Since this involves humans, the History should go in the Interaction with humans section.
6. Humans. 6.1 History. 6.1.1 Whaling [from the dawn of time etc etc]. 6.1.2 Conservation. 6.2 In literature and art. 6.3 In captivity. 6.4 Cryptids.
The section on Cryptid whales is unduly long; for example the Trunko paragraph should be just a few lines, with most of the "reputedly" material excised.
Note: The paragraph on diving is uncited.
LittleJerry (
talk)
20:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Ref 5 - better source needed.
Ref 6 - better source needed.
Ref 35 comes from
this book - please fill in {{cite book}} fields.
Ref 37 - better source needed.
Ref 40 - better source needed.
Ref 45 - please add fields for date, publisher.
Ref 49 - better source needed.
Refs 61, 62, 63 - better (scientific) source needed. 62 is dead, too.
Ref 67 - pages needed (and preferably DOI number too).
Ref 68 - better source needed (and it's a dead link).
Ref 69 - better (scientific) source needed.
Ref 71 - better source needed.
Ref 72 - better (scientific) source needed.
Ref 76 - please add fields for date, author.
Ref 78 - better (scientific) source needed.
Ref 80 - please add fields for date, author.
Ref 82 - please replace with the PLoS ONE ref in the sciencemag article, ie Peter Roopnarine, Joe Roman, James J. McCarthy. The Whale Pump: Marine Mammals Enhance Primary Productivity in a Coastal Basin. PLoS ONE, 2010; 5 (10): e13255 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013255 (needs formatting).
Ref 97 - please update URL and supply full citation.
Ref 99 - author's name is Metcalfe.
Refs 115, 116 - please add date of publication.
Refs 125, 126, 127, 128: suggest delete all four and the supported text which is over-detailed (Wikipedia is "NOT NEWS") and has the wrong tone; the first sentence (ref 124) is basically all that needs to be said. If you want to say a little more, find a better source and rewrite the paragraph.
Ref 132 - redundant and poor source, suggest delete.
Ref 133 - better source needed.
Whale communication - citation needed for clicks and whistles.
Please edit the text on the Commons page of "Features of a blue whale" to show its origins at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as it currently looks as if it was self-created by a user (the license is therefore wrong).
Same for "Features of a sperm whale skeleton".
File:Humpbackwhale2.ogg lacks proper source and author info at Commons and should not be used. Perhaps there's another audio file with better sourcing on Commons.
Please add a ref to Roman and McCarthy 2010 (see the Commons page) to the "Whale pump" caption.
Could you please check with someone at Commons that the "Sperm whale weather-vane" image has a valid license as it looks doubtful.
The first paragraph is a muddle. It needs to say
paraphyletic, probably in the first sentence, mentioning the dolphins and porpoises. Then it needs to explain the 2 suborders; and I'm not sure it's even right to list all the families here, given we've already divided the group into two, and said what it doesn't contain. Then I'd mention the hippo etc, as now, as the last sentence. Perhaps the difference between the 2 suborders currently in paragraph 2 should be merged with the suborder bit in sentence 2 of paragraph 1.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
17:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The lead is repeatedly cited; I suggest that all these refs be removed, and that any facts stated only in the lead be moved to the body of the article (refs 5, 8, 9, 10, and 13 appear only in the lead).
Which nations went whaling from earliest times? In the 18th and 19th centuries? I've restored the 1574 image at the top of the history - it's the oldest image, of obvious historical interest in this article, and it needs direct discussion.
In fact, I'd suggest that more or less all the images should be discussed in the text: firstly, their cultural implications (whaling nations, ports, economic importance); secondly, the artistic progress they imply (woodcuts to oil paintings, for instance).
Where did those nations go whaling?
How important was whaling to those nations (economically, culturally)? Which ports did it enable to flourish? There is considerably more to say; for example, your Whaling Museum source describes 33 whaleships lost in 1871 alone, and that's just the American side of the story.
Please find sources for other whaling nations, including Japanese, French and British whalers, and briefly describe their history also. Read
Whaling and
History of whaling to form a concise, well-sourced summary.
The whaling section is becoming more disjointed through piecemeal fixes; please read the history, then look over the section and rework it to form a brief but coherent account that describes the main features of that subject. For example, the moratorium is introduced in 3 places; obviously it's important but perhaps its mentions could be grouped in the Conservation section.
Which were the subsistence whaling nations? Which whales do subsistence whalers catch? Details with sources.
What is the IWC? It seems to be introduced as an acronym, as if it was obvious what it was; and its function is implied to be anti-whaling, whereas its charter was to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" - sounds like supporting the appropriate catching of whales, no? Seems to deserve a bit of coverage, perhaps a paragraph.
Could you please stop bunching all the images at the top (and chopping both images and captions); browsers vary widely, and it is more convenient specially on small screens for images to be in ones or twos next to the relevant text (by subsection or paragraph). Thank you.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | This ambitious article was barely ready for GAN at the time of submission, being over-long, doubtfully focused on the topic through confusion with the closely-related Cetacea, unconventionally organized, unreliably sourced, and with rather weak coverage especially of the human aspects. All of these aspects have been markedly improved during the GA process and the article is now clearly up to GA standard. It will require very considerable further work to approach FA nomination; some suggestions are given below, and reviewers can be expected to pay close attention to systematic referencing and the history of the topic, among other things. There remain many related articles in need of reorganization and referencing, including articles on groups of whales, whaling, and lists of whale taxa. Since most of these focus on only one aspect (taxonomy or history, for example), they should prove less complex than the current article, which can reasonably be described as a whale of a topic. So, well done. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) |
Please check for dead links such as Nanuq (Cetacousin). There may be archived pages which can be linked. Otherwise they'd best be replaced.
There are several blogs used as sources, eg. Jessica Hullinger's 7 Fascinating Facts about Narwhals or Lord Geekington's Two Finned Dolphin. These are not considered Reliable Sources unless the author is demonstrably an authority on a topic. Similarly, a conspiracy fiction author like C. R. Berry can be presumed not to be reliable by profession and should not be used. The use of Wikia sites such as for Cryptid Whales is not satisfactory; these uncertified tertiary sources are, like Wikipedia, not assured to be reliable. Please check each doubtful site/blog use (not only these examples) and either justify it with evidence that it is reliable or replace it.
The tone of comments such as "(since they can't chew)" is too colloquial for a global encyclopedia, and the parentheses aren't ideal either. Something along the lines of "because they are unable to chew" would be more appropriate. Please check the article for remarks in similar style.
Please expand every usage of abbreviated words like "they're, can't" and "don't" (for example to "they are", "can not" and "do not").
Please ensure that every web page cited has an accessdate. It may be wise to archive some of these.
The use of lists in text articles is one of the GA criteria which calls for some caution; lists are not forbidden but they are problematic all the same. We need to ask here why we should enumerate the species of baleen and toothed whales at all, given that these are listed already in
List of whale species, they all have their own articles, and the families can all be navigated to via the taxobox. Further, there is already an article on the whole order,
Cetacea, which is monophyletic and therefore a good taxon. This points up an awkward fact: "Whale" is not a taxon at all, but a
paraphyletic grouping selected by size from the cetacea. Finally, even if this was a proper taxon, the normal treatment for an Order-sized article is to describe the Families it contains, with one or two examples of interesting genera or species, rather than attempting to describe everything that's covered by subsidiary articles. Therefore, I suggest, and I know this is a bit of a wrench, but there it is.
1) please make it clear that whales are paraphyletic, and that for taxonomy readers should go to Cetacea and to its included families.
2) include a diagram like the one at the top of
Paraphyly showing the relationship of whales and dolphins and porpoises. (This is not mandatory but would be wise and helpful).
3) remove both lists, replacing them with a brief paragraph on each suborder, and if you wish with a word or two on each family within the suborders. I'd suggest the resulting section should contain two short subsections, each with a single image, i.e. one baleen and one toothed whale image. The family descriptions should briefly say what is distinctive about them as families, so - baleen, filter feeding, many of large size; toothed, fish/squid (etc) diet. If you are sorry for the material, much of it might find a home in
List of whale species.
4) For the Extinct genera, the main link to the
List of extinct cetaceans is sufficient. Please remove the three boxed lists. These are redundant with the main list (or if not, they are in error), and not helpful to the general reader wanting to know about "whales" - if they are needed anywhere, it would be in
Cetacea, not here.
5) Again, there is no justification for the coverage of
Archaeocetes in this article to be more detailed per species than in the main article on that topic, so please remove the list as undue. I suggest a single paragraph supported by perhaps two images (say,
Pakicetus and
Ambulocetus to give the general idea).
6) the taxobox is somewhat misleading, and could be said to be actually wrong in this context, making the whales look monophyletic, when they aren't a taxon at all. If you want to keep the taxobox, it ought to show and specifically exclude
Delphinidae and
Phocoenidae, but since orcas and belugas are also
Delphinoidea, a diagram showing the exclusions would frankly be better. My preference would be to remove the taxobox. There is actually a simpler taxobox in
Cetacea, which is the relevant taxon here.
The existing cladogram is very beautiful but somewhat off-topic, as it shows (much) too much detail of ruminants, pigs, camels and horses, and fails to make clear which cetaceans are whales - I can see Delphinidae but not Phocoenidae, for instance; and we don't need so much detail on the fossil groups either.
There are no fewer than 3 sections named toothed whales (and similarly for baleen): ""Odontocetes" in Taxonomy, but the section actually covers anatomy, sonar, habitat, coloration, and feeding as well as taxonomy; "Toothed or Baleen" in Evolution, which also covers quite a bit of taxonomy; and then Species. I suggest you have exactly one section on each suborder, with a {{main|}} link to the relevant article. Currently the Whale article is trying to cover not only every whale species but full details of each suborder, which what subsidiary articles are for.
In contrast, the Anatomy, Life history and behaviour, and Ecology are correctly focused on whales as a group.
Perhaps the bible's "Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook?" deserves a mention.
The section needs to say a little more about Moby Dick's nature as it is central to the novel and indeed to American culture.
The section needs to say something about whales in the fine arts, e.g.
William Duke
Oswald Brierly
Thevet 1574 - indeed, the Thevet image would go well in the history of whaling section.
The history up to say 1900 should be in a section named History; the current Conservation and history looks quite recentist (prominent dates are 2013 and 2008), so the historical element is obscured. The history should briefly describe how and where whales were hunted; how they were processed; what they were used for; and which countries were largely involved. Since this involves humans, the History should go in the Interaction with humans section.
6. Humans. 6.1 History. 6.1.1 Whaling [from the dawn of time etc etc]. 6.1.2 Conservation. 6.2 In literature and art. 6.3 In captivity. 6.4 Cryptids.
The section on Cryptid whales is unduly long; for example the Trunko paragraph should be just a few lines, with most of the "reputedly" material excised.
Note: The paragraph on diving is uncited.
LittleJerry (
talk)
20:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Ref 5 - better source needed.
Ref 6 - better source needed.
Ref 35 comes from
this book - please fill in {{cite book}} fields.
Ref 37 - better source needed.
Ref 40 - better source needed.
Ref 45 - please add fields for date, publisher.
Ref 49 - better source needed.
Refs 61, 62, 63 - better (scientific) source needed. 62 is dead, too.
Ref 67 - pages needed (and preferably DOI number too).
Ref 68 - better source needed (and it's a dead link).
Ref 69 - better (scientific) source needed.
Ref 71 - better source needed.
Ref 72 - better (scientific) source needed.
Ref 76 - please add fields for date, author.
Ref 78 - better (scientific) source needed.
Ref 80 - please add fields for date, author.
Ref 82 - please replace with the PLoS ONE ref in the sciencemag article, ie Peter Roopnarine, Joe Roman, James J. McCarthy. The Whale Pump: Marine Mammals Enhance Primary Productivity in a Coastal Basin. PLoS ONE, 2010; 5 (10): e13255 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013255 (needs formatting).
Ref 97 - please update URL and supply full citation.
Ref 99 - author's name is Metcalfe.
Refs 115, 116 - please add date of publication.
Refs 125, 126, 127, 128: suggest delete all four and the supported text which is over-detailed (Wikipedia is "NOT NEWS") and has the wrong tone; the first sentence (ref 124) is basically all that needs to be said. If you want to say a little more, find a better source and rewrite the paragraph.
Ref 132 - redundant and poor source, suggest delete.
Ref 133 - better source needed.
Whale communication - citation needed for clicks and whistles.
Please edit the text on the Commons page of "Features of a blue whale" to show its origins at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as it currently looks as if it was self-created by a user (the license is therefore wrong).
Same for "Features of a sperm whale skeleton".
File:Humpbackwhale2.ogg lacks proper source and author info at Commons and should not be used. Perhaps there's another audio file with better sourcing on Commons.
Please add a ref to Roman and McCarthy 2010 (see the Commons page) to the "Whale pump" caption.
Could you please check with someone at Commons that the "Sperm whale weather-vane" image has a valid license as it looks doubtful.
The first paragraph is a muddle. It needs to say
paraphyletic, probably in the first sentence, mentioning the dolphins and porpoises. Then it needs to explain the 2 suborders; and I'm not sure it's even right to list all the families here, given we've already divided the group into two, and said what it doesn't contain. Then I'd mention the hippo etc, as now, as the last sentence. Perhaps the difference between the 2 suborders currently in paragraph 2 should be merged with the suborder bit in sentence 2 of paragraph 1.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
17:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The lead is repeatedly cited; I suggest that all these refs be removed, and that any facts stated only in the lead be moved to the body of the article (refs 5, 8, 9, 10, and 13 appear only in the lead).
Which nations went whaling from earliest times? In the 18th and 19th centuries? I've restored the 1574 image at the top of the history - it's the oldest image, of obvious historical interest in this article, and it needs direct discussion.
In fact, I'd suggest that more or less all the images should be discussed in the text: firstly, their cultural implications (whaling nations, ports, economic importance); secondly, the artistic progress they imply (woodcuts to oil paintings, for instance).
Where did those nations go whaling?
How important was whaling to those nations (economically, culturally)? Which ports did it enable to flourish? There is considerably more to say; for example, your Whaling Museum source describes 33 whaleships lost in 1871 alone, and that's just the American side of the story.
Please find sources for other whaling nations, including Japanese, French and British whalers, and briefly describe their history also. Read
Whaling and
History of whaling to form a concise, well-sourced summary.
The whaling section is becoming more disjointed through piecemeal fixes; please read the history, then look over the section and rework it to form a brief but coherent account that describes the main features of that subject. For example, the moratorium is introduced in 3 places; obviously it's important but perhaps its mentions could be grouped in the Conservation section.
Which were the subsistence whaling nations? Which whales do subsistence whalers catch? Details with sources.
What is the IWC? It seems to be introduced as an acronym, as if it was obvious what it was; and its function is implied to be anti-whaling, whereas its charter was to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" - sounds like supporting the appropriate catching of whales, no? Seems to deserve a bit of coverage, perhaps a paragraph.
Could you please stop bunching all the images at the top (and chopping both images and captions); browsers vary widely, and it is more convenient specially on small screens for images to be in ones or twos next to the relevant text (by subsection or paragraph). Thank you.