Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blue Whale

Blue Whale

 * Self-nomination. Pcb21| Pete 16:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: There's no source given for the size comparison chart. / Peter Isotalo 17:57, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought this had originated from a PD US-Gov site, but can't confirm, will turn over to the image sleuthing guys, but this article should be judged with the possibility that this image may be removed. Pcb21| Pete 10:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Object for now – there are a few problems that I noted on my first read through: first, there's a reference to Carolus Linnaeus without explanation, second, there aren't any inline citations (see Template talk:Inote and example at welding), and third, there are several very short paragraphs near the top of the article. I'm also not sure that this article is comprehensive, but that's not an objection until I think of something the article needs.  Good work with this! --Spangineer &#8734; 02:34, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, there seems to be some conflict on the spelling convention used, whether british or american. That should be resolved.  The preferred system of units seems to vary as well. --Spangineer &#8734; 02:38, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your comments. Taking your points in order:


 * Linneaus: Good point. I have explained him.


 * Citations: There are some inline citations where I felt it appropriate to use them - see e.g. "Aranson and Gullberg (1983)" and so forth. However FAs must be meet the standards on various policy pages. Here the relevant policy page is Cite sources which makes clear that we allow substantial leeway in the presentation of references (because different article types suit different styles). The important thing is the references are there to aid verfiability. If you use the references I cite (all with page numbers so the task is easy) you will verify everything. That I don't do so using Inote is not important I don't think.


 * Re paragraph length: There is one just conspicously short paragraph - the very first one and a provision for that is made explicit at Guide to writing better articles. I think all the others match the "one idea, one paragraph" basic rule.


 * Comprehensiveness: I am confident all important points are covered, but if you do think of an actionable objection let me know.


 * The one American spelling has been changed to British.


 * I have made sure that we use consistently use the "metric (imperial)" style throughout the article.


 * Thus I think I have covered everything actionable. Are you able to support? Pcb21| Pete 10:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't "ton" an American spelling, and "tonne" the corresponding British spelling? I know very little about British spelling, so I could be wrong, but since "Metric ton" redirects to "Tonne", I think references to "ton" should be "tonne" if British spelling is to be the standard.  Also, as for units, there were a couple of instances where short tons were mentioned first, with metric tons in parenthesis.  I think they're all taken care of now.  Regarding references, I see now that most of your info comes from short sections of books, so it makes sense that inotes would be unnecessary.  As for comprehensiveness, I think that perhaps whale song could be mentioned and described in the physical description section, either where traveling in groups is discussed, or in the life cycle section (as it relates to mating).  That's up to you, however; once the ton/tonne thing is worked out I think I'll support. --Spangineer &#8734; 18:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't think I appreciated that was an Am/Br difference. Anyway fixed now. I've also added a section on vocalization and topped up specific references. Raul has added a nice set of sounds too. Pcb21| Pete 22:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Good work on this article; I now support. --Spangineer &#8734; 21:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ton is non-metric everywhere that imperial units are used. Tonne is metric (i.e., 1000 kg - about 2204.8 pounds), everywhere where metrics are used. Britain officially uses tonnes, but unofficially a lot of people still use tons. But a British ton ("long ton") and an American ton ("short ton") are different weights. Not to be confused with tuns, of course :) (see ton for full, confusing, detail). Grutness...  wha?  10:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That explains my confusion! Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 11:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, with a question, do blue whales beach themselves? If so a mention of the behaviour should be added. If the chart is not PD it should be pretty easy to knock one together with PD pics from the NOAA and Navy--nixie 00:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Rarely, but it has happened. Weird trick quiz question? What is the largest mammal ever to have been found on the British mainland? Answer, a blue whale that beached itself in northern Scotland in the early 20th century! (oh - support, BTW). Grutness...  wha?  10:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Going to add a bit about this little titbit to the talk page, and then to the article. Pcb21| Pete 11:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * support very nice. I dindt knew that they can live all accross the word. Nice pics. -Pedro 01:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Mark1 09:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. Okay, I know the citation thing is covered above, but I personally have some issues with it. The references noted are good, but there are facts presented without saying which reference covers it:


 * "The longest recorded study of a single individual is thirty-four years in the northeast Pacific." Which study?  When?
 * "Studies have shown that as many as 25% of mature Blue Whales have scars resulting from the attack of an Orca." Which study?
 * "The longest recorded [dive] is thirty-six minutes." Recorded by whom?
 * "The largest Blue Whale accurately weighted by scientists to date is a female that weighed 177 tonnes (196 short tons)." Who measured her?

If these are covered by the references listed, how are we to know if there is nothing pointing to the references, or if the references do not say as much.


 * Well all these things are possible if you really want them. It is almost a question of philosophy. Traditional encyclopedias do not reference. We already do more than that, but do we want to go as far as explicitly referencing every fact? It is tantamount to saying "we are completely untrustyworthy, do not trust anything unless it is attached to someone else". Even academic papers are allowed a certain leeway to make statements. Writing a highly-annotated academic survey paper is of course possible for such a scientific topic as a whale species, but this going to be very hard to do for our article on say, American Idol. Pcb21| Pete 06:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A (largely anonymously written) wiki is completely untrustworthy. ;)  The more specific references the better, but that's an argument for improving our referencing standards across the encyclopedia, not an argument against this article as an FA. Mark1 06:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mark that standards do need improving. However, I was by no means arguing against inclusion for this article, just saying that the references needed improvement and that I'd proffer my vote once done.  We must always strive for improvement even if an article is "perfect."  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 22:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, I've adding specific references for these four cases. Pcb21| Pete 20:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the size comparison chart, a human on it would definitely be helpful. Obviously someone would have to pohotoshop one in, but putting a person on there would really drive home the scale of the whale, especially if one is unfamilliar with the benchmarks listed (personally, I haven't been near any Dugongs, um, ever, to try to form a comparison in my mind). Better yet, putting more animals than just whales and sharks (elephants, for instance), but that probably means creating a scale from scratch.


 * I agree this would be a useful addition. It is a question of having the skill with the relevant graphics programmes to create a good-looking diagram. If anyone has that skill, and just needs the raw data to do the scaling, I am more than happy to provide it. Pcb21| Pete 06:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, other than that, this is actually a really great article. For now I give a conditional No Vote while leaning towards Support of the nomination. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 21:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As my concerns (as noted immidiately above) have been met, I change my vote to one of SUPPORT for featured article status. Great article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 22:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. What is the life expectancy of a blue whale? I feel that this should be here somewhere. --Theo (Talk) 17:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * From the article: "Scientists estimate that Blue Whales can live for at least eighty years; however, individual records do not date back into the whaling era so this will not be known with certainty for many years yet." Pcb21| Pete 18:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Of course ... now I must go and learn to read ... --Theo (Talk) 22:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)