Talk:Whale Research Group

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because, in my opinion, the nomination misreads criterion A10 because the page that is duplicated is not in article space. This article duplicates a draft that is pending review. It is my opinion that A10 should not be used for an article that duplicates a draft. --Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer Note
Whale Research Group

I have reviewed the references for this article. This is a close call as to meeting general notability or organizational notability. Most of the references are about the founder, or are passing mentions. My opinion is that there is enough significant coverage, but that one or two more high-quality sources would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Added More Citations
Hi :::@Robert McClenon,

I have added more citations from the Osprey Nature Journal to the article, which should contribute to hopefully enough sufficient coverage through citations.

One question I have for you is do you think the citations I have for the information I've already written is OK, and I just need more information with other sources with significant coverage, or is it that the information I already have needs to be referenced with better sources?

Also, wrt the table analyzing my references, I noticed no information was added no.10, the Entanglements book published by the University Press of Florida. I am citing a physical copy of the book, and I don't believe the full text is available for free online, but in it, Johnson writes in detail about the entrapment assistance program, so I believe it has significant coverage.

Again I appreciate the help here and in the Tea House, I saw your most recent comment.

Tyroneslothrop00000 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)