Wikipedia:Peer review/Whale/archive1

Whale

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this article a lot since April. I am going to nominate this article for GA class, or FA class but that seems a bit unreasonable, if all goes well here. As always, comments for improvement are much appreciated. Bear in mind I've written it so that it's a bit redundant so if you just read one specific section (which I, and I think most people do) you needn't have read the rest to understand the, for lack of a better word, vocabulary. I understand this article is very long, but, what can I say? They're my favorite group of animals.

Thanks, Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 19:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Burklemore1

I may return the favour with your peer review (since you left some comments on Myrmecia).

Now, I haven't read the article entirely, but you've done an excellent job so far. However, by looking at the sources, I'm a bit concerned with some you have used. i.e. is whalefacts.org a reliable source? I'm concerned at the lack of journals used too (only counted 15 doi's and seven PMID's!) Such journals contain great info. Your formatting of the refs have left me in question too. I'll add some more comments later, since there is a huge amount of them. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC) --- Many of these journals contain a lot of info, so I don't really need much else for any given topic; for example, reference number 1 contains almost everything you'd want to know on whale anatomy and species, but I didn't want just one ref throughout the "Anatomy", "Life history and behaviour", and "Species" sections so I added sources from (mainly) the internet. Also, I messed up on a citation or two and treated the journals as websites, but I'm not sure which one(s), this happened when I was new to wikipedia (so around April)...

If it suits you, I can (out of my free time) fix up some of the references which are actually journals. I can understand, I used to treat journals as books until I realised I was doing it wrong. It also doesn't really matter how many sources you add, just as long as the information is all there and can be verified. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No need; I went over every reference yesterday (which took two hours...) I found three dead links and two websites that should've been journals. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 14:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from jonkerz

Resolved comments from jonkerz ♠talk 21:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I love whales but I do not really know anything about whales and did not have time to read the article in fully, but here are some general comments: There are too few wikilinks, in particular in the lead, eg. the extant families, suborders, etc, should all be wikilinked. --- Done "whereas Odontocetes have well-developed senses" "Odontocetes" should not be capitalized. Change to either odontocetes or Odontoceti. Same thing with the other taxa not using the original scientific spelling. --- Done Decapitalize common names of animals, eg. "The High-Finned sperm whale" --> "The high-finned sperm whale", but watch out for proper nouns, eg. the "Alula" in "The Alula whale" may or may not be a proper noun, it's not always possible to find out without looking it up. Also, be consistent with capitalization in general: "Tethys Sea" is used in a paragraph, and "Tethys sea" in the following. --- Alula whale is named after, I believe, a region; done Scientific names at the rank of genus --> italics and no English plurals, eg. Maiacetus --> Maiacetus; Pakicetus --> Pakicetus; "Kentriodons and their kind stayed small" --> "Kentriodon and their kind stayed small" or "Species of Kentriodon and their kind stayed small". --- Done jonkerz ♠talk 14:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)