User:GriffinSolsburg/sandbox

Article Impressions : South Asian river dolphin
Everything in the article seems to be relevant to the topic. The two subspecies of South Asian river dolphin were recently merged into one page, and information about the two subspecies is blended together into the same article. The article has received a c rating. There were recent discussions about splitting the article into two once more or possibly creating a page for the genus, but the split was denied. The page for both subspecies now redirects here.

Human interaction
See also: Pollution of the Ganges and 2014 oil spill on Sundarbans

Both subspecies have been adversely affected by human use of river systems in the subcontinent. Entanglement in fishing nets as by-catch can cause significant damage to local populations, and individuals are taken each year by hunters; their oil and meat used as a liniment, as an aphrodisiac, or as bait for catfish. Poisoning of the water supply from industrial and agricultural chemicals may also be a contributing factor towards population decline, as these chemicals are bio-magnified in the dolphins Perhaps the most significant issue is the building of more than 50 dams along many rivers, causing the segregation of populations and a narrowed gene pool in which dolphins can breed[16]. An immediate danger for the Ganges subspecies in National Chambal Sanctuary is the decrease in river depth and appearance of sand bars dividing the river course into smaller segments, as irrigation has lowered water levels throughout their range[27].

Article Evaluation


 * Complete the "Evaluating Articles and Sources" training (linked below).
 * Create a section in your sandbox titled "Article evaluation" where you'll leave notes about your observations and learnings.
 * Choose an article on Wikipedia related to your course to read and evaluate. As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):

Pygmy sperm whale


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything in the article is relevant to the species, and I saw no major distractions.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is mostly neutral, but since there is little information about the species, the data available may tend towards a certain position. This is not a major detriment to the article, the editors are simply trying to use the data provided.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The anatomy of the pygmy sperm whale seems to be over-represented in the article, being much larger than the rest of the sections. I do not believe this is on fault of the editors, as most of the information about this particular comes from stranding events.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links in the sources do connect to their respective articles, and are used to properly support claims in the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The sources used are all from reliable-peer reviewed journals.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Most of the information is up to date, with fairly recent sources (the last 20 years).
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are a few small discussions on the Talk page, mostly dealing with slight edits to the layout or information presented in the article. There are no major debates regarding new information that could be added.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The Article is most notably in the Cetaceans and Mammals WikiProjects, and is rated Start-class in both.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The article does focus on human interactions with the species in more detail than is usually gone into in class.

Improving an existing article?


 * Identify what's missing from the current form of the article. Think back to the skills you learned while critiquing an article. Make notes for improvement in your sandbox.
 * Some sections on anatomy could be transferred to the echolocation section of the article, particularly the area describing how the melon functions in respect to sound.
 * All sections besides Anatomy are rather small, but this may be due to a lack of data present as the species is fairly elusive.

Peer Review: Pygmy sperm whale

The pygmy sperm whale is an elusive species, with the majority of the data coming from stranding events. With this in mind, the article performs admirably given the circumstances. The anatomy section is very well-detailed, and effort can be seen in different areas of the organism's anatomical features. However, the rest of the article is rather short, and the little available data often results in conjecture about the organism. Overall this article seems perfectly acceptable, but there is still room for improvement.