Talk:Dwarf killer whale

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello! A few editing suggestions: This article lacks an introduction. I think it would be more reader friendly if the page did not open to the contents, and to an introduction instead. The section titled "Migration Patterns" is lacking a citation. Consider finding more sources and lengthening some of the sections to add more information. HappyForestCreature (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I found this article very interesting and I have a couple of suggestions for you to improve it even more. An addition of an introduction would be a nice way to prep the readers for the contents of the article as opposed to just jumping right into the information. Also, an addition of more information and citations to the ecotype subheadings would be beneficial as well to give readers a better understanding on the topic. Lisalovesit (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This article is very infromative and offers a lot of detail about the different ecotypes of killer whales and dwarf killer whales. However, this article could be improved by reorganizing the different headings. The article seems to jump around a bit, talking about gerneral dwarfism, to the different ecotypes, back to dwarfism again, then onto migration patters and research. To prevent confusion and to help improve the flow of the article, perhaps reorganize so similar sections are grouped together, potentially having each ecotype be a subsection under an "Ecotype" header, or adding a section about ecology where you can discuss migration and ecologies of each ecotype. Overall, I found your article very interesting and learned a lot from it. Best of luck. Abigail elaine13 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this article was very interesting and did not know about the idea of dwarf killer whales! Overall, the article was written extremely well, and I did not notice any typos or awkward sentences. I do think that the article has a lot of headings, and I think making one heading labeled "Ecotype" with each sub ecotype under it would help clear up the article a bit. I'm not sure if the last section about future research is necessarily needed in this article because most users who would look up this topic will just want to know facts. Verashark (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This article overall was informative and easy to read. However, I agree with previous commenters that the "Future Research" category is not necessary. The flow of information could be rearranged as well, with the different ecotypes falling under one category. Also, the section on "migration patterns" seems to fit in a more general article on killer whales, and not necessarily specific to dwarf killer whales. Maybe link back to the page on Killer Whales for this? --Woollyworm (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd like to start by saying you have some really great information! I was impressed overall with the amount of detail this article contains. Your lead section has great information that allows readers to know what this article is going to discuss. There was one place that I feel could use a citation : "Oceanic Science journals have long hinted at the existence of a complex breed of miniature killer whales since the 1950's". Another simple thing I noticed was "There are several ecotypes that have been established in regards to the whales physical appearances and body length by Pitman and colleagues", since you cited the Pitman paper at the end I don't think you need to include the name at the end of the sentence. I would change the "Background of Discovery" to just say Discovery, or "Discovery of ...". Overall you have great coverage, and neutral content, possibly adding a few more citations and it will be great! I love the pictures, I should add some to my article! Good job!Lizanderson309 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]