Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sperm 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 not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC).

Sperm whale

 * Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has already met the GA criteria, and I think that after improvements by myself and other editors it is now worthy of FA status.Kurzon (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Not yet ready to be evaluated for FA status. Without even delving into the text itself, a quick glance shows many problems: citation needed tags, many unsourced sentences and paragraphs; there's a sentence with 9 citations after it (!) (and another with 8); single-sentences subsections, etc. Sasata (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Agree with Sasata. A wide range of sources and facts has been assembled, but the actual structure and writing of the article has a way to go. Also looks like there is insufficient information on the ecology, which is really a section on distribution, while "diet" is a top level heading rather than being part of either ecology or behaviour. Other examples of issues: That said there is plenty of information assembled read to support rapid improvement.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs beginning with sentences that don't specify the subject, eg. "How they choose mates has not been definitively determined."
 * Single sentence subsections in "description"
 * Subsections or paras that lack appropriate overview, but contain random specifics, eg. skeleton subsection begins "The ribs are bound to the spine by flexible cartilage,..."
 * The only substantive text under skeleton relates to echolocation, which is actually the main subject of a later subsection on vocalisation
 * Random info hasn't been culled, eg "Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, mentions cachalots (perhaps incorrectly) as preying on fellow whales."
 * Looks to be too many external links per WP:ELNO

Oppose and urge withdrawal. Criteria 1a and 2b are the most obvious problems; the prose and article structure are simply not ready for FAC. Frankly, many of the core problems from the 2008 FA delisting still persist here as well (including inconsistent capitalization of the name and a prune-worthy EL section). The usual reference formatting problems and probable objections to image use and layout seem secondary at this point. This is badly in need of a thorough peer review, and, frankly, I think the GA reviewer was generous regarding the article's organization. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.