Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exploding whale

Exploding whale
Re-nomination: last time it failed for technical reasons and they have since all been resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) (It failed because 4 people supported while 3 people said it was too short &rarr;Raul654) (And those people who said it was too short have mostly said the length is OK now, during that time the article doubled in length Ta bu shi da yu)


 * Oppose. A good topic for Weird World News, but neither the topic nor the tone strike me as appropriate for a featured article. The writing is inconsistent and the whole article needs significant tightening up. Denni &#9775; 23:06, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, there's nothing I can do about the topic itself. The tone, however, I'd like to resolve if you don't think it's too good. What in particular about the tone of the article do you have an issue with? - Ta bu shi da yu 16:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Denni, could you address my query about the problems with the article's tone? I realise you don't like the article topic, but I'd still appreciate a response. After all, if I can't get a more specific objection about the tone then it's not exactly an actionable objection, is it?
 * Note: I've also left a similar message on Denni's talk page. Also, Denni wrote the following on my talk page:
 * Sorry, Ta bu shi da yu, my vote remains to oppose. This story strikes me as one which is most appreciated by the rubberneck crowd - I can see nothing in it to enlighten, elicidate, or instruct. It is entirely sensationalist, and though it may teach a minor moral lesson about sticking explosives in without considering where the results may fall, it is first and foremost an off-color joke, and nothing near a featured article. Denni&#9775; 00:21, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
 * Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note that User:Denni has not replied on this page (actually he did, but I didn't notice because he managed to somehow duplicate this nomination) (I'm an idiot.) so I'll include what he wrote on my user talk page:
 * My objection is not with the concept. It is with, as I have already said, the topic and the tone. I oppose the topic because it consists of only two events, hardly a common occurrence, and in the two cases, the cause of explosion was completely different. Second, I find the writing style flippant and irrelevant. For example, Paul Linnman's quote is foolish, and the fact that the blast scared away scavenging birds is (a) no surprise to anyone, and (b) an utter irrelevancy.
 * This is a fun story, and it is exactly the kind of article I like to see appear in Wikipedia to ease the tedium of charged politico-economico-cultural articles. But I cannot bring myself to see it as having any value as a feature article. Sorry.
 * Denni&#9775; 03:12, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
 * I replied:
 * I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the Paul Linnman quote as being irrelevant. Had you actually viewed the footage, you would have noted that it is a highly significant part of his news footage. You may believe it was foolish, but I'm quoting him as straight out factual (and might I note interesting) material for the story. Just because you deem it foolish does not stop it from being relevant. Secondly, the fact that the birds were scared away is relevant because "they [Oregon Highway Division] believed that the use of dynamite would cause an explosion that would disintegrate the whale into pieces that were small enough for scavengers to clear up", which clearly did not happen. This fact is pointed out to show clearly that their theory was incorrect. Obviously you are wrong about it being obvious to everyone, because it certainly wasn't obvious to the Oregon State Highway Division! So also you can see it's not irrelevant to the story: on the contrary it's highly relevant.
 * ''And finally, your objection to the article topic is not actionable or valid as a reason for objecting to the article (as has been pointed out several times by various people (among them being Meelar, who wrote "Neither support nor oppose, but note that we should not be biased against an article because of its topic; specifically, that's pretty far from actionable."). Please also note the top of the Featured Article candidates page says "If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, the objection may be ignored", which we'll have to do with your objection to topic in this case. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * ''And finally, your objection to the article topic is not actionable or valid as a reason for objecting to the article (as has been pointed out several times by various people (among them being Meelar, who wrote "Neither support nor oppose, but note that we should not be biased against an article because of its topic; specifically, that's pretty far from actionable."). Please also note the top of the Featured Article candidates page says "If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, the objection may be ignored", which we'll have to do with your objection to topic in this case. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. The writing style is non-encyclopedic, specifically the lead section is not a proper overview, but instead a narrative continuation with the next section.  The first sentence in the paragraph starting with "While this story was widely known..." needs some restructuring for clarity.  Does the Usenet bit have anything to do with Dave Barry and his video?  Finally the Taiwan section seems out of place and the title of the section doesn't properly introduce the idea the way the article is currently structured. - Taxman 03:03, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've modified the lead section, the paragraph in question and with a modified lead section hopefully this makes the Taiwan connection more clear. Would you suggest modifying anything else? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice work taking care of those. Only thing I see now is the noting that exploding whales are a "popular" or "favourite" theme of authors seems a major exaggeration.  Perhaps you could say the idea has been covered by a number of authors.  Three certainly does not a popular theme make. - Taxman 12:15, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Done :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 22:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * After further review, I still object on a number of grounds. I see more non-encyclopedic writing.  But primarily that it simply fails to reach the bar set in What is a featured article.  Specifically it is still very short, and being not a truly important topic nor notable beyond its humor, I'm not sure much more can be written about it.  With that, the guidelines say a short article should be "excellent", and I find nothing compelling about the writing in this article.  Much of it seems to be an attempt to pass off a humorous incident into an encyclopedia, which should only become featured if indeed excellently written. - Taxman 15:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, which bits are non-encyclopedic? Also, may I point you to heavy metal umlaut? This is not a globally important issue by any means, yet it still got to featured article status. Also, it's an actual event and not just an attempt at trying to pass off a humour incident into an article. It's also documenting a well-known Internet meme, so it could be argued that the article is very informative for those who want to find out more about this meme. For the record, I also disagree that this is a "short" article. I did a test, and printed Heavy Metal Umlaut. That came to 3 A4 pages. Then I printed Laika, another front page featured article. This came to just over 4 pages long. Milgram experiment came to 4 pages long. The exploding whale page prints to 3 pages.
 * Many articles became featured that would not make it now simply because more and better articles are nominated. That doesn't affect the standards current articles should be held to. Two of the three you mention happen to be very well written and important. If the article were not an attempt to pass off humor (which it is funny btw), then it would have been titled something like 'disposal of beached whales'. Or instead, as you mentioned, an acceptable point is that it is covering an popular(?) internet meme. If so, then I think that section should be expanded if it is/was truly widespread, with something like a quick and dirty estimate of how many usenet posts discussed it, etc. I shouldn't think that would be hard to run. With that, I would withdraw my objection. Also, one word which seemed un-encyclopedic to me--bastardized, is in fact used entirely correctly. - Taxman 18:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be placing this under "disposal of beached whales" because it doesn't cover all methods of disposing of beached whales. It is only referring to incidents where whales have exploded. However, I have attempted to clarify the newsgroup discussions part of the article and reference the earliest mention of the exploding whale in the alt.folklore.urban FAQ and snope's query about whether it was real. It's quite hard to get google to give accurate search statistics on how many times exploding whales are mentioned, because "blow up" and "exploding" and "explosion" are all mentioned in the messages and it doesn't give accurate numbers of articles that were posted. For instance, if I type in "oregon whale" into Google groups search then I get 463 entries. If I type in "exploding whale" then I get 245 . The most significant reason it's important to alt.folklore.urban is because it's in the FAQ I would posit. - Ta bu shi da yu
 * Note that the What is a featured article says
 * "Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However excellent short articles are also accepted." Also, it says that it must be:
 * comprehensive, factually accurate, and well-written. Please read Great Writing and The Perfect Article to see how high the bar can be set. - check
 * Accurate: support facts with specifics and external citations (beware vague justifications such as "some people say") - check
 * Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose--the former name for featured articles. - I hope so!
 * Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars). - check
 * Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. - I think it's pretty good
 * Include a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic (see Wikipedia:Lead section). - this was fixed
 * Include images (pictures, maps and diagrams, with good captions) where appropriate. Please be sure of the images' copyright status. - check
 * Include headings (see Manual of Style (headings)) and have a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section). - check!
 * Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual. - check - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Neither support nor oppose, but note that we should not be biased against an article because of its topic; specifically, that's pretty far from actionable. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:54, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
 * Sure topic can matter. If the topic is Taxman's bikeshed, it will be summarily deleted, no matter how well written or researched. So a non encyclopedic topic could fail to meet the featured article standard just the same.  I'm not saying that this article is entirely non-encyclopedic, but I don't believe that topic cannot affect whether an article becomes featured. - Taxman 15:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Taxman's bikeshed would be deleted because it would be an inappropriate subject for an article. The principle is that any valid article can, if good enough, be a featured article.  Markalexander100 02:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * In theory, yes. But I'm willing to bet that List of dog breeds won't ever become a FA. :-) I support exploding whale, by the way. &bull; Benc &bull; 02:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Its fun and its well enough written (William M. Connolley 22:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
 * Support, well written. The topic is fine. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  20:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. A well-written article about an unsual subject, exactly what Wikipedia is best at. --Zerbey 02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Article topic should not preclude Featured status. Lyellin 15:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support --Phil | Talk 16:15, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object - the introduction needs some work. The prose is pretty bad. &rarr;Raul654 20:19, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * What in particular is no good about the introduction? It seems to introduce it well and it summarises what the article is talkign about quite accurately. I'm happy to incorporate suggestions though! Also, with the prose, could you let me know which parts/sentences aren't very good? I'd really like to fix this up and address your objections! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It took me several times re-reading to figure out exactly why I didn't like it. The two issues I have with the introduction are the (1) the layout of the first sentence. I think the best way (and by far the most common) is to have the article name as the first word or words in an article (excepting for articles such as A, An, or The) - so I would rephrase it to start with "Exploding whale..." or or "Exploding whales..." or "An exploding whale" or "The exploding whale" or something along those lines. I'm not quite sure how to make it work for this article, though. (2) My second objection is that the first paragraph lacks any kind importance. News-format introductions really should tell you why should care, and I don't think this does. There's a tendancy to read it and say "So what?" which is something to be avoided in our featured articles. &rarr;Raul654 08:31, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, now I understand. I've modified the intro to make it more news worthy and bold the exploding whale phrase, as most good articles have done. Is this OK? Could you check it for me and let me know if you can see any more ways of resolving this? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There has been some improvement (the addition of the Dave Barry fame reference at least gives some idea of why the reader should care). But the first sentence is still very cluckly, and the importance is still weak. &rarr;Raul654 21:32, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've modified the first sentence to say "Two exploding whale incidents have so far been documented worldwide." What do you think? Actually, I'm going to take this to the talk page... - Ta bu shi da yu 04:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Support (weakly). I'm a little torn - I like the article but it is not quite the best writing. I've made a couple of changes, but for example the Slashdot paragraph at the end of the Oregon section is still rather ragged. I'm slightly troubled by the quality of the TV captured picture at the top. Also questions remain; if decomposition caused the Taiwan whale to explode, why don't more corpses do so - or was there a pecularity due to the transportation. However, on balance, the article's good points outweigh the bad, and it would be better than many alternatives for the front page, so I will support. -- Solipsist 21:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * With regards to the first image, no better image exists. The footage, even on the KATU Channel 2 website, is pretty awful. I can't say why more corpses don't explode, only perhaps mention that most whales are transported through the centre of town... we really don't have any more information than the news reports of the day. Unsure what you mean by the slashdot paragraph at the end of the Oregon section... could you clarify? BTW, I appreciate your efforts at cleanup! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I can see that it is not easy to get a better image, it is just that the grey and over-compressed picture is a bit of a turn off. I suspect someone could do a better screen grab from the video file. It might also be better to focus on the explosion than the whale - the image on the Katu web site is better.
 * WRT slashdot paragraph - it is just a question of emphasis. Wikipedia suffers from being called the 'encyclopedia that slashdot built'. Whilst the discussion about the story's history in the Miami Herald and on alt.folklore.urban is not irrelevant, it is more about the story's influence in culture rather than the event itself. Also "The story was confirmed..." it doesn't need confirming at this point, we've just discussed it as fact. So perhaps the last two paras should be moved to a later section on cultural influences, prefaced by a comment that for several years the story was thought to be an urban legend until someone did the work to relocate the original news story. I'm also not sure that the discussion about Peter van der Linden and Snopes adds much at all - it hints that there is some kind of priority dispute regarding who talked about it first on the internet - that might be relevant to the individuals, but doesn't seem particularly relevant here. - Solipsist 08:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, pretty good idea. I've added a section called "Popular culture" "Urban legend status" to the "Oregon" section, and clarified the sentence that seemed like there was some sort of priority dispute regarding who talked about it first on the Internet. Also modified the first sentence to make it clear that many people believed it to be an urban legend, though it isn't. Is this OK now? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Completely support. This article is great.  -Seth Mahoney 07:12, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Kizor 14:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Object Support (-- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   09:05, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)): Needs a bit more wikification, gas, carcass, theme, transported and decomposing were not wikified in the lead section. I linked those words however the article needs to be wikified throughout. Furthermore Image:PDcapture1.jpg should be updated with a capture from the original video as opposed to some internet stream, Ta bu shi da yu said that no better image exists, this is untrue -  KATU Channel 2 no doubt has the original in their archives and someone could contact them for a better screengrab. If these things are fixed i will withdraw my objections. --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   17:14, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
 * I've done the next best thing and included a better picture from the KATU website. Is this OK? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't believe it's untrue. The only footage they have on their website is a just as grainy as the other footage you see. I have no way of contacting them myself, however. Perhaps someone else can? The other thing is, don't we risk overwikifying the page? - Ta bu shi da yu 19:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That was the point, that is their website footage which is made from the original tapes which they still have. And i do not think that my additions are overwikifications. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   19:12, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough on the overwikifications. With the screen grab, all I'm saying is that I'm not sure how to contact KATU to get a better picture. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Surely a news agency must have a contact address at their website. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   20:33, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that we are allowed to use this image at all? Here is a notice from KATU 2's webiste: "This site contains copyrighted material of Fisher Communications, Inc. (KATU TV) which may not be copied, distributed or re-used in any way without KATU TV's prior written consent." -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   19:22, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
 * Under fair use copyright we are able to use it. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've come across some bad grammar in the article for example "The whale that exploded in Taiwan happened due to a natural build-up of internal gases during transportation". This doesn't really mean anything because it says that the whale happened as opposed to the explosion happened, i've changed this to something better however others might want to look over the rest of the article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   19:22, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
 * Look (this might seem a mite defensive), are you saying the whole article is riddled with bad grammar based on one fairly awful caption I added late one night? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I mearly suggested that it it be looked over, i've found some other examples e.g. "In November 1970 a 45-foot (approx. 14 metre), eight-ton gray whale beached itself near Florence, Oregon and died." i think it would be more natural to say "In November 1970 a 45-foot (approx. 14 metre), eight-ton gray whale died as a resault of beaching itself near Florence, Oregon.". The current version mearly states that he beatched himself and died but not that he died as a resault of beatching, if that was not the case and the two events were completely unrelated and it was mearly a coincidence that he died at that time then the current version should be kept, however in the much likelier case that he died as a resault of beaching the paragraph should make that clear. Furthermore it would be even better to use "In November 1970 a 45-foot (approx. 14 metre), eight-ton gray whale died as a resault of beaching itself at [beach name here] near Florence, Oregon." some beaches have names and this one could. --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   21:10, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
 * Look, no offense, but that made perfect grammatical sense, and in fact was very clear that the whale beached itself and then died. Sure, your sentence is better, but this did not make the other sentence bad grammar. It merely makes your sentence better. It is extremely obvious that the sentence implied that the whale died as the result of beaching itself, any reader would understand this. I'll take your change on board, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What i actually meant to say is that it was a bit vague, the grammar was correct (i confused the two at the time). -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   09:05, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the original sentence is better.  Since, presumably, no-one carried out a post-mortem on the whale it is just an assumption that it died because it beached itself.   It's a natural assumption, but that's all the more reason why readers should be allowed to draw the natural conclusion themselves rather than have us spell it out in wordier form. Markalexander100 02:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I've listed more of these on Talk:Exploding whale. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   09:50, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
 * Object. I suggest we keep it for April 1st though, it would be perfect for the main page at that time - and only at that time. Treat my vote as support on that day. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What? April 1st is for fictional news, this actually happened. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   10:04, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
 * Ummm... that's not really a valid objection you know. What specifically do you object to? Also, April the 1st is for fictional things, this really happened. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Invalid objection, IMO. This page is for nominating featured articles, not articles to feature on the main page. Johnleemk | Talk 07:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Somehow Denni managed to duplicate this featured article nomination... I've fixed this. Hopefully I haven't lost anyone's nomination in the meanwhile! He wrote:


 * My objection is not with the concept. It is with, as I have already said, the topic and the tone. I oppose the topic because it consists of only two events, hardly a common occurrence, and in the two cases, the cause of explosion was completely different. Second, I find the writing style flippant and irrelevant. For example, Paul Linnman's quote is foolish, and the fact that the blast scared away scavenging birds is (a) no surprise to anyone, and (b) an utter irrelevancy.


 * This is a fun story, and it is exactly the kind of article I like to see appear in Wikipedia to ease the tedium of charged politico-economico-cultural articles. But I cannot bring myself to see it as having any value as a feature article. Sorry.

Denni &#9775; 03:12, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)


 * Ta bu shi da yu jumps to the conclusion that I "somehow" duplicated this page. He is wrong. It was already duplicated when I dropped by to answer yet another insistent question. If you want to jump to conclusions, Ta bu shi da yu, then I guess it's your skipping rope, but I for one am getting more than a little tired of your trying to twist my arm into a support vote. I have no problem with persistence for a good cause, but when it starts to edge into rudeness, I have to ask you to back off. Wikipedia is not Weekly World News, which would be a good repository for this story (yes, I can be rude too.) It certainly cannot hold a candle to the great majority of articles which have been featured, and many articles which have not. I have nothing more to say on this matter, and my vote remains unchanged.


 * Gah! Denni is totally correct. Please accept my total complete and unreserved apologies for saying you caused this! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. This does not change my opinion that he is wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems to me that the objections mostly lead towards a listing on VfD. Not, I hasten to add that I'm suggesting this coruse of action, but either the article belongs here or it doesn't. There can be no category of (non-list) article that belongs but can never be featured, surely?. If one accepts that the article is valid, it seems well enough written, nicely structured, and well researched with good references. It makes more sense to me that having the Simpsons in the Beat generation article, for example. Not the sort of thing I'm ever going to write myself, but I enjoyed reading it and Wikipedia needs a lot of stuff that falls outside my sphere of interest, or yours, gentle reader. Filiocht 14:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - I liked it the last time around, but, thanks to everyone's input, it is even better now. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Markalexander100 05:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)