Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bottlenose dolphin/1

Bottlenose dolphin

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Bottlenose_dolphin/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: There is clear consensus to keep this. Any remaining flaws can be discussed on the talk page, but they don't appear to justify delisting at this point in time.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is in need of major renovation if it is to remain GA. A request was placed on January 27, 2016, and it's really needed since the article was promoted 5 years ago.


 * There are [citation needed]s all over the place, some dating as far as 2009. "Description", "reproduction",
 * I replaced all the citation needed tags.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Senses" - sentence beginning "When under water, the eyeball's lens serves to focus light," i s uncited.
 * Cited  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Nearly every section has one or two sentence paragraphs that break the flow. "Interaction" and "cultural influence" in particular are jumbled messes.
 * I don't see it, could you explain a bit more?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Under "Taxonomy", the "Some recent genetic evidence..." line; under "Description", the "Bottlenose dolphins can live for more than 40 years..." line; under "Anatomy", the "Bottlenose dolphins have 18 to 28 conical teeth..." line. "Interaction" and "Cultural influence" also read choppily, with lines like "Therapies for handicapped children can include interactions with bottlenose dolphins" and "The Miami Dolphins NFL franchise uses the bottlenose dolphin as its mascot and team logo." standing alone. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with stand-alone sentences  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 06:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Many citations are incomplete, particularly #6, #15, #18, and #70, in tthis revision.
 * I fixed the ones mentioned above. I'll look through the rest of article for more later, I'm a bit busy right now.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 04:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What makes list25 a reliable source?
 * Replaced  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy this week. Could this wait until the weekend? I'll try to fix what I can throughout the week.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep I noticed the following few issues. I believe these can be fixed easily and the article need not be delisted. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that citations not be used in the lead. The facts in the lead must all be mentioned in the main text as well - the citations should thus go to the main text.
 * removed


 * There are a plenty of duplinks:
 * Hybrids: Atlantic spotted dolphin
 * Description: dorsal fin
 * Anatomy: rostrum, dorsal fin
 * Cognition: artificial language
 * Tool use and culture: rostrum
 * Reproduction: Shark Bay
 * Social interaction: Sarasota, Sardinia
 * Relations with other species: False killer whale, Risso's dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin
 * Predators: sharks
 * Interaction: great white shark, Brazil, Mauritania
 * Threats: Immune system
 * Fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 05:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The citations should have a proper and similar format, preferably using cite templates. Ref. no.s 5 and 52, for instance, could be formatted better. In places we have sources like wiu.edu- it is better to say Western Illinois University. Check for such cases.
 * fixed


 * There are some unsourced parts in Anatomy, Predators, Cultural influence and Conservation.
 * fixed


 * The image of the head under Anatomy could be shifted to the right; it looks clumsy.
 * moved from the left side to the right side  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 06:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep for the exact same reason as SainsF. I also see two other very simple issues:
 * "Interaction" section is in too many paragraphs
 * fixed


 * Fix the who tags
 * fixed

-Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support delisting - there is honestly not a lot to fix if I was doing the GA review today, but there are some source issues and minor stuff. Notes below  MPJ  -US 04:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * use between measurements and their units.
 * template undefined undefined is used


 * Spell out "ml" the first time ml is used
 * done


 * Source problems, Dead sources
 * 64, 69, 35, 59, 108
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 06:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Subscription Required
 * 97
 * added


 * I agree with the "interaction" section, it's too many short disjointed paragraphs to really be easy to read.
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 06:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed to Delist - the GA toolbox tool revealed a major copyright violation as far as I can tell. if this had been a GA candidate it would be a quick fail.  MPJ  -US 04:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is the copyright violation?
 * Yes, could you please point out the copyvio? Which tool are you referring to? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 06:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What tool? The one that's in the GA Tool box, DYK Toolbox - Earwig's copyvio detector - Result here. It is showing that large parts of the text matches this article from 2013. It is showing large blocks of text as being identical, not just specific terms or names or titles either.  MPJ  -US 12:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Couldn't that have been taken from the Wikipedia article? FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how we would be able to tell who copied who? it' not a wiki type site but it's definitly possible. MPJ  -US 01:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)`
 * , according to WikiBlame, some of the "plagiarized" passages were present in a 2012 revision, a year before the indicated published date of the website. The website copied information already present on the wikipedia article.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 05:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, our article should be ok. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - yep I jumped the gun, since there are improvements being made etc. I change my vote to keep then.  MPJ  -US 11:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep if identical text on another website was taken from here, delist if our article is a copyvio. Also, I think the citations in the intro are unnecessary. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A further point, I think the species should be listed in the taxobox. Just saying "see text" is almost an insult to the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * added
 * It seems you have added subspecies of a particular species instead of the three full species mentioned in the intro. Likewise, "Species: Tursiops truncatus" should be removed form the taxobox, as this article is a bout a genus, not that particular species, which is covered at Common bottlenose dolphin. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done


 * Keep Had I come along and seen this when it was originally listed for re-assessment then I too would have supported delisting. But some really excellent work has taken place during this process. Based on the information in the article appearing prior to the other website (which should be detailed on the talk page of the article in case any reader has the same query) then I can support keep. The very, very minor issue I have is the size of the paragraphs for Taxonomy section appear unbalanced and I'm never a fan of sandwiching text between two images. But that's me, not the GA criteria. So keep. Miyagawa (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any more comments?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The one-sentence paragraphs still bother me a bit because they break up the flow and make it read choppily. Other than removing a non-notable cultural reference (it was redlinked and cited only to a primary source), I felt nothing else needed a change now. Good job. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep: Another example of minor problems that could be = fixed in a single editing session being used as the basis for delisting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)