Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baleen whale/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2016.

Baleen whale

 * Nominator(s):  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about baleen whales which classified under the parvorder Mysticeti. There are four families (Balaenopteridae, Balaenidae, Cetotheriidae, Eschrichtiidae) that are different from each other by body shape, which in turn is greatly influenced by their feeding behavior. This can be either lunge-feeding or gulp-feeding. Note that deadlinks are most likely caused by using https instead of http (as per this RfC) which apparently does not allow you to go to websites (including .gov sites).  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I fail to why there might be dead links. If you're linking to a website that only provides non-secure connections (HTTP), then don't use a secure (HTTPS) URL to link to it, or yeah, things aren't going to work :) On the other hand, it is good practise to offer secure links whenever they're available, and that is what the above RfC was specifically about: Google [Books/Scholar/etc] and the Internet Archive both offer secure connections to their content, and therefore Wikipedia should securely link to that content, i.e., use a HTTPS URL. Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Even reputable websites like oxforddictionaries.com requires http  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine (though a little surprising), in that case it's perfectly fine to use a HTTP link. It's only case of if there is a secure link available then it's considered good practise to use it :) Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked, https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ works fine, though some of the resources included on that page aren't behind a secure connection (just two images actually), but that's not really relevant to just linking there. Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
Long time, no comment, but I'm happy to be back at FAC. As is usual for my work here, I'm focusing on references and reference formatting. All reference numbers are relative to this version of the article:

General
 * It's not immediately clear to me what the criteria are for a source to be listed in "Works cited" and subject to Harvard referencing versus merely cited in long-form in the references.
 * You are inconsistent about whether to include publication locations for book sources (see #4, #5 without them, but #8 with one). Locations are optional, but must be consistently included if desired (personally, I don't care for them, but it's a matter of editorial discretion).
 * Yeah, in the GA review I was told to add locations to certain refs. I'm not too sure why, I'll just get rid of them


 * There are quite a few sources where middle initials appear prepended to the last names, instead of where they belong. For example, in Fordyce and Marx (#12), the citation should read: "Fordyce, R. Ewan; Marx, Felix G.". This problem is pervasive, in both the references and works cited. I'm not going to try to identify all the problems in this review; a thorough audit is necessary.
 * In all refs, the middle name is in the last name


 * At least one ISBN is not properly hyphenated. All ISBNs should be presented as fully hyphenated ISBN-13s. Use this tool (and bookmark it, you'll love it!).
 * I already have it bookmarked since you first told me about it in the Whale article review (and it has been very helpful). I'm pretty sure all of the ISBN numbers are ISBN-13 (and I fixed the unhyphenated one)

Specific referencing issues
 * There are some inconsistencies with how you cite online dictionaries. Compare the dictionary.com reference (#1) with the Oxford Dictionaries reference (#2). More specifically, I don't think the dictionary.com reference needs the italicized URL. The Oxford source styles itself "Oxford Dictionaries", which our citation should reflect; you may also consider citing Oxford University Press as the publisher there, at your discretion. Finally, the Oxford cite has an incomplete retrieval date.
 * fixed the Oxford publishing and access date. What should the |work= parameter be for the Dictionary.com ref?


 * Citing section titles instead of page numbers (as in reference #3) is not standard practice.
 * fixed


 * Shorter Oxford English [D]ictionary
 * Retrieval dates are not required (and, indeed, are discouraged) for print sources, such as Dolin (#5), even when a convenience link to an online version is provided. See also reference #29.
 * removed retrieval dates from book and journal refs


 * I'm not convinced of the need for the long reference quote from Woodward, Winn, and Fish, especially as it serves to essentially reference the material to an older source not otherwise credited here.
 * The byline for the Animal Diversity Web source (#7) gives the authors' full first names. The source also gives a publication year of 2002 (although not a more specific date).
 * So should I add the authors' full names?


 * Rosenbaum et al. indicates the source is in a pdf format, but there's no link to the article, so presumably no format field is necessary.
 * fixed


 * Your Harvard referenes citing page numbers use pg.; convention is to use p. for single pages or pp. for page ranges. I'm not certain if this is considered an acceptable alternative within editorial discretion; if so, it isn't an actionable objection. Note that pp is used at least once, in reference #30.
 * changed pg. to p. and pgs. to pp.


 * The correct journal title for the Fordyce and Marx source is Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
 * fixed


 * The Thomas source (#13) definitely does not require a publication location. The website itself should be cited as GrindTV, not GrindTV.com (the latter is the URL, not the website name). I'm not entirely convinced that this is a high-quality, reliable source, but could be convinced otherwise...
 * replaced with a BBC article


 * The Nakamura and Kato source (#15) doesn't need the country of publication. It does have a doi (10.11238/mammalianscience.54.73) that should be included.
 * removed location and added doi


 * The correct journal title for Potvin, Goldbogen, and Shadwice is Journal of the Royal Society Interface.
 * fixed


 * The link to the Royal Society Open Science article (#22) is not working; it appears the journal site does not permit https connections.
 * fixed


 * I'm a big supporter of OCLC numbers for books that lack ISBNs, but they aren't needed for journal articles (especially those that have a doi already), as in #24.
 * I don't think there is any harm in keeping the OCLC


 * Reference #25 has the http/https problem. Also, the correct journal title is Royal Society Open Science.
 * it seems Royal Society journals aren't compatible with https. I'll fix all of those


 * For reference #40, I would spell out World Wide Fund for Nature Global. I don't think the italicized URL is necessary. I'd also cite the org as publisher rather than author. Opinions on this formatting issue may differ.
 * what should the |author= and |work= parameters be?


 * Compare the formatting for reference #41 with the same website, cited differently, in reference #7.
 * fixed


 * The LiveScience article (#44) summarizes a publication in Nature. It might be worth examining the original paper, rather than citing a popular science news aggregator.
 * replaced


 * I don't think there's a benefit to citing the (sub) chapter title in reference #48; the chapters aren't by different authors, and you're already citing the claims to page number.
 * removed chapter


 * I'm not sure what's up with reference #52, but I don't think this is properly cited. I think the given ISBN is for a bound volume of the journal Physiology, and that this reference should be cited as a journal article with a title name and volume/issue/page information.
 * I don't know what's going on with that either. The ISBN and URL lead to two different things (and I'm certain I copied the correct ISBN). I don't know what to do about this...


 * For Bunn (#58), I again don't think the chapter is required here. Also, Transaction Publisher[s].
 * removed chapter


 * Is there a better source for the information cited to reference #59 than Huffington Post? To put it mildly, they're not always a high-quality source for science topics.
 * That's the only internet source that explicitly talks about that. I could replace it with the youtube video but I don't think that's much of an improvement


 * I'm not having much look identifying the parent source for the appendix cited in reference #62, but in any case, this citation is not properly formatted and is missing critical bibliographical information.
 * the source does not explicitly state the names of the author


 * Reference #63 needs a retrieval date.
 * added today's date (21 March 2016)


 * Reference #67 cites the Science website, which should probably be styled that way (despite sciencemag being the URL). However, it might be preferable to reference the original paper instead.
 * replaced


 * The correct journal title for reference #68 is Geological Soceity of America Memoirs. You give this as issue 57, but I believe that's actually 67.
 * fixed


 * Unlike most of the books where chapter titles are cited, in reference #70, they are necessary. Aidley is the editor of the work as a whole, but C. H. Lockyer and S. G. Brown are the authors of the chapter "The migration of whales" (pp 105–138).
 * fixed

And I'm stopping there, at roughly halfway through the references. The author formatting problems and journal title errors are the most significant issues. I'll confess that I didn't double-check the correct title of every journal cited, and I probably should have, given that journals are incorrectly cited several times. It's still very early in the FAC process for this article, but at least at the moment, I need to regretfully oppose per 2c. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Squeamish Ossifrage, are you happy with the nominators edits, or do you still see some instances that should be addressed? I have willingly left additional comments about the references, so would you suggest all of my concerns surrounding the references be solved? Burklemore1 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * do you have any more concerns regarding the references?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Image review

 * World population graph should be scaled up
 * done (but you might want to check if it needs to be bigger)


 * Captions generally need editing for grammar - for example, complete sentences should end in periods
 * done


 * File:Baleen_whale_sizes.JPG: what is the source of the data used for this comparison?
 * I'll ask
 * the author didn't respond but I did find a source  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * File:Humpback_Whale_underwater_shot.jpg: source link is dead
 * fixed


 * File:Janjucetus_Melb_Museum_email.jpg: please fix the machine-generated source
 * It says "Nomachine-readable author provided. [User:]Cas Liber assumed", so it does eventually say the copyright details even though the original author is not provided. Should I just change it just "Cas Liber"?


 * File:Eubalaena_blow.jpg: source link is dead and should use NOAA tag rather than the general USGov
 * fixed


 * File:Humpback_lunge_feeding.jpg: source links are dead
 * fixed


 * File:Humpbackwhale2.ogg: any chance of a more specific date? Even a year would be better than what we currently have
 * that was a joke from some vandal, I'll remove it


 * File:Eubalaena_glacialis_dead.jpg should use NOAA tag
 * replaced


 * File:Sperm_whale_fluke.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That image is not in the article...


 * Sorry for not responding, I've add the flu for 2 weeks. Can you wait until Saturday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkleosteus77 (talk • contribs)

Comments from WereSpielChequers

 * Hi, interesting read, I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki...
 * Re The unique lungs of baleen whales are built to collapse under the pressure instead of resisting the pressure which would damage the lungs. I'm assuming that this is related to diving? May I suggest it would be better expressed as: the lungs of baleen whales have evolved an ability to collapse while diving. This enables baleen whales to dive to deeper depths.
 * Well this sentence is in the Anatomy section, and the reformatted version would better suit the Evolution section if any.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some info on depths they can dive to would be good, see Sperm_whale as an example.
 * added to the Internal Anatomy section (on the paragraph about lungs)  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not reponding, I've add the flu for 2 weeks. Can you wait until Saturday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkleosteus77 (talk • contribs)
 * No problem. There is no deadline, respond when you are ready. Hope the flu leaves you soon.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  05:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging to see if they have anymore comments. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk
This is a big one, we're kind of touching upon the same subjects over at evolution of cetaceans, so I'll return here before long. But I'd like to see issues dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Has Squeamish Ossifrage's points been fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From the looks of things it has, but the user has not replied. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll have a look later today. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is the etymology a separate section from taxonomy? It is about the meaning of the taxonomic name, and therefore belongs under taxonomy. Would also be better to define what the animals actually are before going into etymology.
 * merged  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * You make no mention of who named the group, when, and under which circumstances, that is a pretty major oversight. Also seems synonyms could be listed in the taxobox.
 * It says in the Etymology section (Aristotle named it). Added synonym to taxobox  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "was mistakenly run together" What does "run together" mean? Seems informal, "combined" would be more scientific.
 * changed to "mistakenly translated"  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "although obviously more appropriate" Is this what the source actually says? Seems loaded.
 * the source says "...and more obviously appropriate for whales with baleen in their mouths..."  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "more appropriate and occasionally used in the past, has been superseded by "Mysticeti". Make it clear if it's a junior synonym.
 * added  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "s due to the presence of baleen. These animals rely on their baleen plates" Why is baleen plates only spelled out and linked at the second mention?
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "derived from the Latin word balæna." Which means whale as well?
 * yes  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "Right whales got their name" Too informal, received would be better.
 * "right whales received their name" just reads strange  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * It means the same, but is more formal language, therefore more appropriate here. "Given" could also be used. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "List of extant mysticetes" Obviously a misnomer,r since extinct taxa and genera are listed as well.
 * fixed <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * The article seems to take a relatively controversial new theory (that the pygmy right whale is a cetothere) as fact, but this seems not to have been confirmed by other researchers, so alternate earlier hypotheses should be presented as well.
 * added <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "Baleen whales are cetaceans of the parvorder Mysticeti" This make sit sound like they are a subgroup of mysticetes, when the two terms are synonyms. Could be made less ambiguous.
 * changed to "...cetaceans classified under the parvorder..." <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "Balaenids are distinguished by their enlarged head and thick blubber" Seems an odd definition, the other groups surely have these characteristics as well?
 * no, the rorquals have a flat head and not as much blubber as right whales <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "and artiodactyls are now classified under the order Cetartiodactyla, often still referred to as Artiodactyla." This seems handwavey. So does one taxon belong under the other, or are they somehow synonyms?
 * synonyms (they basically just mashed the words Cetacea and Artiodactyla) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "The hippopotamus and pygmy hippopotamus are the closest living relative to baleen whales, aside from toothed whales." Mention Whippomorpha.
 * added "and form the suborder Whippomorpha" <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "Cladogram showing phylogenic relations between mysticete species according to Hassanin and Ropiquet, et al., Sasaki and Nikaido, et al., and Rosenbaum and Brownell, Jr., et al." Is this cladogram WP:Original synthesis? You can't combine different studies like that.
 * Hassanin talks about rorquals, and Rosenbaum talks about right whales, so instead of making two different cladograms, I just made one <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * Then you should make clear that the upper part is according to one study, and the lower to another. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * that's talked about in the main text (Classification section) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to mention it in the caption so it is immediately visible, not only buried in the article body. Otherwise it looks like syntheis. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "are morphologically (different skull shape) and phylogenically different." This doesn't make sense, the two terms are not exclusive. Perhaps you mean genetically.
 * no, molecular phylogeny. Should it say "molecular phylogeny" in some way? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * That is the same. Phylogeny can be determined both by genetics and morphology. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * okay, so should "phylogeny" stay or be replaced with "genetics"? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Balaenidae originally consisted of only one genus" Was thought to consist of. The animals had these interrelationships before humans discovered it...
 * fixed <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * Why does the museum every scientist is affiliated with need to be mentioned?
 * Sainsf added it in during GA. S/he figured it would be better to say "according to a study done by H. C. Rosenbaum (of the American Museum of Natural History)" than to "According to Hassanin and Ropiquet, et al..." <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * I can see why you would write their full names, but the museusm seem superfluous, especially since researchers from different museums often work together on such studies. Perhaps has something to add. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping .08:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I didn't know anything other than the museum names, perhaps could add something more proper like "zoologists" or "researchers". The point is to let the reader know who they are, and just their full names won't help.  Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 08:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think something like "geneticist", "zoologist", etc., would be much more relevant. Museum affiliation doesn't really say much about what exactly they do, and seems a bit irrelevant, unless the museum itself is discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Rorquals consist of" You introduce all the other groups with their scientific names in that section.
 * added <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * You define the groups both right under taxonomy, and under "Differences between families". There seems no reason why these two duplicate texts should be separated. I'd just merge the text under "Differences between families" into the upper text. Furthermore, some of the info there seems to be more relevant in other sections, about anatomy and behaviour. So not sure what its purpose is.
 * the only differences between them are anatomy and behaviour (what else would it be?). They were originally together but it seemed to go off-topic, so they were separated <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * What I'm asking is, why is that section even needed? The info seems like it belongs in other sections, and is actually duplicated there most of the time. You should define the differences between the groups in the sections that are about their behaviour and their anatomy. Just one example "However, rorquals need to build up water pressure in order to expand their mouth, leading to a lung-feeding behavior. Lung-feeding is where a whale rams a bait ball at high speeds". This info is duplicated under the foraging section, which is where readers would look for it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it would seem to go off-topic elsewhere: starts talking about anatomy, then goes into taxonomy, then back to anatomy. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you of course don't have to move everything to anatomy or behaviour specifically, but you do not need duplicate info anywhere in the article. The specifically taxonomic info could just be moved to the first paragraph under Taxonomy which already discusses differences. But info about behaviour and such (which is already mentioned under behaviour) belongs there. FunkMonk (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "rams a bait ball" Explain what it is
 * ram=hit with head, bait ball is wikilinked <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * Most readers won't know what a bait ball is. "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * added "a swarm of small fish" in parentheses <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "and consist of four families:" You should say four extant families, as there are many extinct ones as well.
 * added <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk

Comment from Tim riley
This is a splendid and hugely enjoyable article, but it isn't clear which variety of English it's meant to be in. It is mostly in BrE (metres, centimetres, kilometres, grey, behaviour, litres, recognised, centrepiece, cancelled) but there is the occasional bit of AmE (gray, color, traveling, favored). According to WP:ENGVAR we should stick to whichever was first used in the article, but I'm blest I know how to find out which that was without spending hours combing through old revisions. I don't imagine anyone will object if you take a view on either sticking with BrE and Anglicising the few AmE spellings or else switching to AmE and Americanising the BrE spellings. But we want consistency one way or the other.  Tim riley  talk    10:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be in American English, I don't see any British English used (except for maybe "neighbouring" but I'm not too sure on that) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have listed some of the BrE spellings, above. There are more of them than there are AmE variants. Until the spelling is amended to be made consistent throughough I shall have to oppose for now.  Tim riley  talk    07:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I used CTRL+F to search those specific spellings in the article and I have not found metre, grey (well once but that was for a reference title), behaviour, litre, recognise, centrepiece, or cancelled. Centre was used once but that was for a reference so it should be there. As far as I know, British English is not used in the article. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is excellent, and I am completely baffled about the earlier differences. I can't account for them at all. Putting the present text through my usual spell-checker I cannot find most of the words that came up when I did the same last week. Heaven knows what that text was, but, I'm very pleased to find, the only spellings that come up for query this time are "moustache", "neighbouring", and "sizeable", which the AmEng spell-checker doesn't like. "Naval" (for "navel") in the main text and "Bumbs" in the alt-text are probably typos. (There are a few pictures that are missing alt-text from their captions, by the bye, and there is a comma splice in the caption "Humpback whale skeleton, notice how the jaw is split into two".) It would be good to clear some of the worst examples of WP:OVERLINK - names of countries such as Norway, United States, Australia etc are not to be linked (MoS), nor are large seas and oceans; I doubt if any of our readers need help with the words "chin", "corset", "genitalia", "mouth", "parasite", "penguin", "promiscuous", "taste buds", "vein" and other everyday terms; and the repeat links to e.g. "killer whale" should be removed: one link apiece from the main body of the text is the maximum (the rule doesn't apply to captions) – 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed, but I kept promiscuous and corset. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Support – In my opinion the article satisfies the FA criteria for prose, the coverage is comprehensive, the sourcing is wide and appears highly authoritative, and the article is splendidly illustrated. I'm sure any outstanding details of referencing can be attended to satisfactorily, and I congratulate the nominator on a fine and very enjoyable piece of work. –  Tim riley  talk    17:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Burklemore1
Since you have willingly left comments at the peer review for Termite, I only just noticed your candidacy and will leave some comments. First impression is though it's very comprehensive and well-written. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First, since there is a source citing the original description of this parvorder, did the author leave any comments worth mentioning? I know the article discusses some characteristics that can distinugish them from other whales, but is there any more left there? Any justifications as to why he erected the parvorder? I also see that the source does have an accessdate which is not needed for books, and a specific page number would be helpful.
 * It was first recognised as a parvorder in 1997, but the authors of that study (I think it was something along the lines of MKenna or McKenna) acknowledged Cope 1891 as the author. Should I replace it with the 1997 study? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * If Cope is the recognised author then no. You could read Cope's source and see what he originally classified them as.
 * According to Mckenna and Bell 1997, they give credit to "Syllabus of Lectures on Geology and Paleontology" page 69, but I can only access pages 1-47 <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * Well if it's too difficult to access the content, just add the specific page number and remove accessdate. You can skip this one unless someone can provide you the full book via email.
 * Issue with Cope source still needs to be addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * " They are sexually dimorphic." Nothing particularly wrong here, but it seems I can't find anything discussing this in the body. Please correct if I'm wrong.
 * added <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "Males typically mate with more than one female (polygyny), although the degree of polygyny varies with the species." Again, can't really find anything.
 * added <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "...moved the pygmy right whale from the (now empty) family Neobalaenidae" A bit more detail needed. The article discussing this whale says Neobalaenidae is now a subfamily, so I don't think it's technically "empty", just deranked. I think for clarity sake that this article should state it is now a subfamily and not "empty".
 * Neobalaeninae is a subfamily. Neobalaenidae is a family (that is now empty)
 * The subfamily and family are not separate though because it is technically the same name. The subfamily itself was once treated as a family, but has since been elevated. Therefore, the name isn't empty, just changed. It's the same case with Myrmicinae, which was treated as Myrmicidae at one point.
 * done <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "...Janjucetus hunderi was discovered in the early 1990s in Victoria, Australia." Sounds like it was beached or something. Perhaps you should say it was discovered around Victorian waters in Australia?
 * I think it was found by some surfer, so it technically 'beached' (because I don't think it was found in the water)
 * Ah, makes sense now. It could be worth mentioning this then.
 * I have only noticed that the species is extinct, but the article was vague about this remark. I have clarified this. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * " The discovery of Janjucetus and others like it suggests that baleen evolution went through several transitional phases." Is there anything discussing these transitional phases?
 * Should I give some examples of transitional species?
 * Sure.
 * done


 * Link Fucaia buelli.
 * There's no article for it. Should I do it anyways?
 * Yes. It encourages article creation from what I have read.
 * done <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "..., dating back to 33 mya." Link "mya" to this article.
 * done <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * In the "internal systems", there seems to be a consistent series of "unlike other..." or "like other..." To change it up a bit, you could say that these features are either similar or found in different animals, but written in a different fashion.
 * I changed one "like other", so now there is one "like other" and one "unlike other"
 * Good enough with me! Adding more comments now. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The unique lungs of baleen whales are built to collapse under the pressure instead of resisting the pressure which would damage the lungs,[51] enabling some, like the fin whale, to dive to a depth of −1,540 feet (−470 m)." Interesting statement that goes in detail, but I have a question: is this given depth the absolute deepest they can go to, or can they simply swim at these depths with ease only? Is this the maximum depth?
 * that's the deepest they can dive


 * "It is thought that plankton blooms dictate where whales migrate." I assume the term "plankton blooms" is referring to where large populations are present and reproduce rapidly? Does climate also play a role? From the sounds of things in the latter sentences that these whales only migrate to tropical waters during winter because of low plankton populations, rather than being winter itself. I forgot to note that one of their reasons is because calves will die from winter temperatures due to frostbite, but what about the adults?
 * in winter, when the poles get very cold and dark, whales migrate to the tropics to give birth because: the calves would die of frostbite in polar waters, and it's dark so there's not as much food as there is in winter <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * "There have also been reports of a pod attacking and killing an adult bowhead whale, holding down its flippers, covering the blowhole, ramming, and biting until dead." Some parts of this sentence are oddly worded. Also, what pod are we talking about?
 * killer whale pod <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * I note that the term "pod" has been clarified, but the issue surrounding the sentence has not been addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * changed it to "...and ramming and biting..." <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Many parasites latch onto whales, notably whale lice and whale barnacles. Though not a parasite, whale barnacles latch onto the skin of a whale during its larval stage." If it isn't a parasite, why does the first sentence make it out like it is? Wouldn't it be considered a phoresy if it simply attaches itself onto these whales?
 * switched it around with whale lice. It isn't phoresy because whale barnacles use whales as a good place to feed (lot of water rushing into their mouths in nutrient-rich water on a whale)

*"A species of Antarctic diatom, Cocconeis ceticola, forms a film on the skin, which takes a month to develop." Does this affect the host whale?
 * it creates a biofilm so it would have a slight impact on the skin. Skin stuff isn't so serious because they have a thick layer of blubber, so it doesn't necessarily 'harm' the whale as such
 * The article should say the biofilm does not harm the whale, but may have a minor impact on the skin.
 * added <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Baleen whales have fibroelastic penises, similar to those of artiodactyls." What does "fibroelastic" mean?
 * fibroelastic is a type of tissue. It's like connective tissue
 * Since there will be a handful of readers who will not know this, perhaps it would be nice to add in a brief explanation in parenthesis.


 * " By the early 1790s, whalers, namely the Americans and Australians, mainly focused efforts in the South Pacific where they mostly hunted right whales, with catches of up to 39,000 right whales by Americans alone." This leaves me curious, considering Australia was only colonized in the 1780s. Did early colonial settlers from Australia participate with Americans or others?
 * Londoners went to Australia for whaling
 * If this is the case, then the article is telling something different. If it was people from London whaling in Australia, this needs to be changed.
 * Should it be changed to "...namely the Americans and the Australians (from London)..."? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Depends on what the source is saying. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed it to "By the early 1790s, whalers, namely the British (Australian) and Americans, started to focus efforts in the South Pacific; by the mid 1900's, over 50,000 humpback whale were taken from the South Pacific" <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If that is what the source says, then that's OK. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In the "history of whaling", I see there is a quote used. After the last sentence before the quote is being used, why not use "The IWC states that:" or "The IWC states the following:"? Just looks a bit odd.
 * should I removed the "–IWC Commission Schedule, paragraph 10(e)" at the bottom?
 * No, that can stay. What I mean is the following sentence should incorporate this: "Whaling was controlled in 1982 when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) placed a moratorium setting catch limits to protect species from dying out from over-exploitation, and eventually banned it.[115] The IWC states the following:
 * wouldn't that be redundant? How about

"...and eventually banned it:[115]                                                – IWC Commission Schedule, par. 10(e)" <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually now that I read it, it may be so. Perhaps remove "–IWC Commission Schedule, paragraph 10(e)" if you feel this would cause redundancy.
 * done? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * What changes have you made? Burklemore1 (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually (again), I only saw the very small change. That's fine with me. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Animal-rights activist groups (such as the Greenpeace[127]) object to Japan's scientific whaling, with some calling it a substitute for commercial whaling.[128]" Remove parenthesis from Greenpeace and move ref to the end of the sentence.
 * I replaced the parentheses with commas and put ref #127 at the end of the comma <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * Possible omission in captivity: While these whales are rarely kept in captivity, is there any information about those who oppose?
 * This happened mid-to-late 20th century, I don't think there were many animal rights activists back then <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * Ok, if this is the case I'm not asking much. If there is no material available, there's none and I won't prevent the article from reaching FA.


 * It could also be helpful by adding that these whales are rarely kept in captivity in the lead.
 * added <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * In the "List of extant mysticetes" table, the second instance of nomen dubium is linked after the first one. The first does not have italics either.
 * fixed <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk


 * This source could be used in relation to conservation. Be sure to add the doi, PMID and PMC.
 * this only says that people were more compliant when tickets were added
 * It also mentions the reduction of speed in vessels to lower the collision rate with endangered whales. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * added <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk

Conclusion

 * That seems to be all from me. The referencing needs to be dealt with ASAP, but I won't oppose since these are relatively easy fixes. Once all of my concerns are addressed, I will happily support.
 * Seems most of my concerns have been addressed, but I haven't gone through the article as of yet. Because of this, I will wait until everything is finished and support if I'm happy with the changes.
 * When I do my second read, I will strike my concerns if I'm happy with the changes or if the nominator gave a reasonable explanation to any specific issue.
 * Still waiting for one more issue to be addressed, then I can happily support. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support All of my concerns have either been addressed or explained and so I believe the article reaches FA criteria. Huge admiration towards the nominator for his quick and efficient responses. Well done, I hope to see this promoted. The only thing I recommend the nominator to do is ping the reviewers here and see if they have any additional comments, especially the user who has opposed. Someone may need to do another sweep over the references, though this is unlikely as I see minimal issues. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article for GAN. This is really impressive work, and I don't think anything more needs to be fixed after the efficient reviews above. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi
The "Works cited" section is a pretty big mess. It needs more than a little work. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you mean. How should it look like? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I reorganised it into alphabetical order <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Middle initials go with first names, then you sort by alpha. I fixed it for you. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * in this article, the middle initial goes with the last name, so, to stay consistent, I'll revert it and fix it. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. OK OK. Yes, I know. We can do any thing we please here on Wikipedia. We can have any citation style we want. Right? We can make up our own. Right? But no, I Oppose . I draw the line at sorting by middle initial, which has no precedent of use in any real or parallel universe. Oppose. This format is simply a big middle finger to every reader who has ever even glanced at a Bibliography.  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn okay I'll fix it <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed all of the refs in the article <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by anon
The opening sentence is a problem, "Baleen whales are a widely distributed and diverse parvorder of carnivorous marine mammals." Why is the fact that they are carnivorous so prominent in the article and included in a taxonomy statement? There are three orders that contain marine mammals, a group, not a clade so far as I know, and one of the orders of mammals that includes marine mammals is the Carnivora. This sentence sounds off and sends me away from the article rather than into it. They are filter feeders, they include the hugest beast in town, but really, that they are carnivorous marine mammals, but not Carnivora, even though we are talking about taxonomy....
 * the opening statement of the Taxonomy sections doesn't have the word 'carnivorous' in it. The word 'carnivorous' (actually any word starting with 'c-a-r-n') only shows up twice in the entire article: once in the lead and once in the Foraging section, I don't quite understand the 'prominence' problem. The article never said they are (or ever were) classified into the order Carnivora, and the taxobox clearly says Order Artiodactyla, I don't see how the word 'carnivorous' leads you to the order Carnivora. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I was going to look at the science, but I can't get beyond this opening sentence about whales, but maybe about seals, also.... -2600:380:B11D:F3AD:1B8A:4BC4:8D90:5E81 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note
Please remove the done/not done graphics from the page per the FAC guidelines, as they slow down page load times. Where are you on your review currently? I can't make sense of the above due to the masses of unsigned inline replies. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, would it be helpful if I signed them all now, even if I wrote them on different dates? Burklemore1 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine—but in the future,, it would be helpful if you signed inline replies or made a separate section for replies. Otherwise it is very difficult to scan for your remarks versus those of the reviewer. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I am going to go through my second read of the article and strike out some of my comments. I'm sure that would make things easier. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I see at least one outstanding issue from the image review. If that is not resolved, we will need to remove that image. There is another problem in the annotations on Commons as well. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * if you are referring to the size comparison image, I asked the author for the source, and did not get a response, but I did find a source <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm referring to that image. Some also left an annotation on the image at Commons indicating that something is incorrect. I'm not sure how the image you linked above is a source for the image in the Baleen whale article. The text right on the image says it's the work of a Wikipedia user, so that doesn't meet WP:RS. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that the author mistook the "source" parameter for the "author" parameter (I've seen this happen a lot). As for the annotation, I mentioned the error in the caption of the image <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  02:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.