Talk:Granny (orca)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 12:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I propose to take on this review. I will make a detailed reading of the article in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

First reading

 * In general the article is well written and arranged, but a few points struck me as I read it:
 * The lead paragraph is quite short yet contains seven citations. In general, the lead is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article and shouldn't contain any material not mentioned in the body of the text, so the citations should be in the main article, not the lead. See MOS Lead
 * The second paragraph is given the section heading "Description" but this does not describe most of its contents.
 * You could slightly expand the part about recognition of individual animals as readers may be unfamiliar with this concept.
 * "scientists believed him to be Granny's last offspring, her own age was estimated at about 60." - Do you mean "most recent offspring" or last offspring because the whale is now too old to reproduce?
 * "They have completed a journey as far as 800 miles in a week." - Perhaps "travelled" would be better here. This statement needs a citation.
 * "According to researchers, Granny also has multiple grandchildren and great-grandchildren travelling in the pod with her." - Citation needed here too.
 * Who is Piddock and why does what he say deserve attention?
 * The Piddock quote needs a citation.
 * "Additionally, Granny and her family are at risk from declining West Coast salmon populations." - Another sentence that needs a citation.
 * That's all for the time being. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, sorry I didn't see it until you pinged me. I will go through it more thoroughly, and see what I can clean up. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No action has been taken on any of the points I raised above. However I believe that the GA criteria are broadly met by this article and some of the points I raised are trivial. So I have improved the referencing by adding citations for several statements and I now believe the article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize for not taking any action on your review, I have not been as active in wikipedia for the past few weeks, and your review had slipped my mind. I appreciate you looping back and fixing some of the elements yourself. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)