Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Humpback Whale

Humpback Whale
Self-nom. I am sure there are typos (I am terrible at spotting my own), but I think the topic is covered fairly well now, and it has the all important pics. Pcb21| Pete 22:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. That's a nice article! - David Gerard 23:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. -Sean Curtin 06:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support with two caveats: the article could use an external links section, and I'm wondering whether it's necessary to capitalize Humpback and Humpback Whale each time they appear in the article? Exploding Boy 14:01, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'll have a scout round for good things to link to. Suitable things I can think of are a) greater depth articles on specific aspects of the subject (i.e. academic papers) or b) articles that have images that show the whole body (these are almost always drawings rather than photos for reasons of practicality!) Ideally the article would have one of these itself, but they rarely freely available from the copyright point of view. Secondly the capitalization thing is a general policy of the Tree of Life WikiProject. We should keep this article in line with the general policy - even if that policy is the source of endless debate :)! Pcb21| Pete 15:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The question is -- is it proper English? Fredrik | talk 15:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Humpback whale is not a proper noun. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * A Humpback Whale is a species, not merely a whale that is humpback. Similarly the blue jay that you see in the yard may be a Blue Jay, unless you live west of the very rocky mountains, where it may be Steller's Jay. But there are other North American jays, and not every blue bird is a Bluebird, as not every miller is Mitch Miller or Ann Miller. Wetman 19:33, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC).
 * But a lion is not a Lion, right? Surely this is an inconsistency, or am I missing something? Fredrik | talk 19:48, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Right! not every lion is the Nemean Lion, or a particular species or sub-species. I'm probably hopelessly old-fashioned. Correct me; I won't fuss. Wetman 19:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Many particular species are listed in the dictionary. For the record, both Britannica and Merriam-Webster spell the Humpback Whale "humpback whale". Does that correct you? ;-) Fredrik | talk 23:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess we could come up with a rule that no ToL articles can be featured because there is always going to be a significant portion of people who disagree with the policy (whichever way round we have it). I personally hope that no such rule is required. Of course if there any new issues that are not considered in the 600k of text in the ToL archives (and hundreds of mailing list posts) which led to the current policy then we must explore them, but not here. Pcb21| Pete 17:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting. The article is quite good, and I'm not prepared to argue with dozens of irate biology-lovers over capitalization. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I think this article should include some description of the whale's song; quoting from : Humpback whales are probably best known for their &#8220;songs,&#8221; which are considered to be the most complex vocalization in the animal kingdom. . (We have "This whale is famous for its long and complex song - see the whale song article for details."). I don't think we should duplicate the content, but perhaps provide one or two summary paragraphs (if the external quote is true.) &mdash; Matt 21:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. Pcb21| Pete 22:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object (sorry!). I think this is a nice article, but... 1) It could do with a full view (underwater) photograph or a diagram; the current pictures don't really give the overall view (even the breaching pic is obscured by spray). 2) I get the impression there needs to be more raw facts: e.g., have details about feeding, the size of body parts and behaviours (skyhopping, "lobtailing" etc) that we don't have. &mdash; Matt 00:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't say sorry. I know putting a nom here is definitely asking for a thorough examination and I welcome it. As I mention above I agree that a full-body image or diagram would be a great improvement but are hard to find. I will send some emails to those sites that look like they may be amenable to the GFDL and Wikipedia's aims. I must deal with lobtailing, spyhopping, (though skyhopping would be cool too I am sure :)), breaching etc in a separate article and reference it from the article with the usual short summary. Pcb21| Pete 08:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Neat article. It could use a *lot* of expansion; this is much more important than the all-important pics :).  Please provide more insight into how humpbacks fit into the grand scheme of things -- evolutionarily within its genetic family, and in its current ecosystems.   What do its social groups look like?  How, broadly, do humpbacks interact with other species, human, whale, or otherwise?  Who are the people who like to study these whales; who wrote about them hundreds of years ago when they were only occasionally sighted, tell me more of the history of human interaction with these easily-spotted and remarkable whales, aside from kill rates and numbers. +sj +  06:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The article states ...the most-studied and well-understood of all cetaceans as researchers have been able to follow the trials and tribulations of individuals and small groups in studies ongoing since the 1970s, but tells the reader nothing of these trials and tribulations, or of these ongoing studies.   More detail on Phil Clapham and his book (perhaps a few words in this article, but a good one-paragraph stub in their own articles) would also improve the article.
 * Lots of good ideas here. I will deal with them as many as I can when I get home to my books and report. However I fear the answer to some questions may simply be "unknown". Pcb21| Pete 08:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object to image descriptions. Please provide full descriptions for the photos you didn't take yourself; a proper link to "NOAA site", naming the site without the acronym, and perhaps a link to their image-use policy. +sj +
 * I'll ask the person who uploaded them to help me out with that. Pcb21| Pete 07:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Turns out I didn't need to. I have tracked down the source of images and lengthened the description of all of them (including mine). Pcb21| Pete 08:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Reluctant object - Nice article, but I must echo the call for an image showing the whole animal. I would also like to see some more info on the animal's behavior (mating, parenting, feeding, etc) along with evolutionary history and the role these animals play in their ecological niche. --mav 07:47, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Taking on board the many bits of encouragement, advice and objections, I have substantially expanded the article and hope I have basically covered all the bases. Please see Talk:Humpback Whale for a more detailed analysis. Pcb21| Pete 15:17, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice job! Accept. Although it is still a bit lean in the areas I cited (other than the image), I think that that article covers all major aspects well enough for featured status. More can be added later - but a solid foundation already exists. --mav 09:45, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Does this picture address the problem of not having a full-body shot of the whale?  RickK 23:07, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a slightly modified form of this: Image:Humpback_Whale_underwater_shot.jpg. James F. (talk) 23:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks Rick and James. Pcb21| Pete 09:29, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm impressed by Pete's followup of this process. &#9999; Sverdrup 22:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, despite the naming issue. Fredrik | talk 23:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The "Taxonomy and evolution" section needs tweaking for creation-vs-evolution NPOV; I guess it only needs a few careful changes of things like "it is known" to "evolutionary biologists believe" and the like. &mdash; Matt 15:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Evolution is *the* accepted method by which animals come/came to exist. We do not need to drag out creationism every time we talk about evolution, nor do we need to undercut the language. &rarr;Raul654 17:50, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * I had the same initial reaction as you but realising this suggestion had implications for the whole tree of life project, I thought I should take the question there (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life), and a correspondent pointed out an improvement without necessarily getting into creationism. I've implemented that suggestion, so hopefully all sides will be ok. Pcb21| Pete 19:01, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The rewording conveys the same information in an NPOV way without loss of clarity, thanks! &mdash; Matt 22:12, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice job JoJan 17:28, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent article. &mdash; Matt 21:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. --Yath 04:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)