Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fin Whale

Fin Whale

This article originally attracted my attention when it was linked from Wikipedia's main page relating to recent news about Iceland resuming whaling activities. At the time, it had been listed as a featured article candidate (link to previous nomination) very prematurely. The article has subsequently been overhauled and refined and has been peer reviewed (link to most recent peer review, link to older peer review). I believe that this article now meets the standards of featured articles.

For comparison, other featured articles about whales include Blue Whale (link to FAC discussion), Humpback Whale (link to FAC discussion), Right whale (link to FAC discussion), Sperm Whale (can't find FAC discussion), and Orca (can't find FAC discussion). Neil916 (Talk) 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Very nice, I Like!. - Tutmosis 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support To continue with Tutmosis's statement, high five! -- Kicking222 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

high five! great success! - Tutmosis 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The only issue I noticed was that the foreign language links were out of order (they were ordered for the editor rather than the reader), but I used AWB to fix that for this nomination. Jay32183 05:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great job! Very comprehensive. The first paragraph of Taxonomy and first paragraph of Habitat and migration could use some sources though. Gzkn 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object for the moment, until the following issues are resolved: → Support
  • Per WP:LS, lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate. For example, there is a statement that fin whale is the second largest whale and living animal, but it is unsourced. I can't find it anywhere in the body. There are also similar sentences in the lead section that should be sourced.
  • Need some copyediting by someone who is not familiar with the subject. For example, in the following randomly picked sentences:
    • The family Balaenopteridae is believed to have diverged from the other families of the suborder Mysticeti as long ago as the middle Oligocene. → found a weasel word, unsourced, missing commas and redundancies.
    • On a global scale, populations of the three groups rarely mix, if at all. → is a bit odd and I think "population" is already in plural form, cmiiw.
    • Subspecies in the northern hemisphere are known to reach lengths of up to 24 metres (79 ft), and the Antarctic subspecies reaches lengths of up to 26.8 metres (88 ft),[6] although the overall average size of males and females is 19 and 20 metres (62 and 66 ft), respectively. → it is a confusing long statement. The conjunction word although there makes me confused about the comparison between maximum length with the average lengths. Also why are males and females average size compared with the maximum lengths in the first clause of that statement?
    • It was hypothesized to have arisen because the whale swims on its right side when surface lunging and circles to the right often while at the surface, presumably above a prey patch (circular feeding). → weasel words and unsourced speculation statement.
  • Per WP:MOS#Date_and_time, please remove these vague words to state a time: at present, to date, in recent years, etc.

— Indon (reply) — 11:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Reply: Taking your points in order:
    • Lead section has been sourced.
      • Sourced and corrected the evolution statement, but no commas are necessary in that sentence. Removed weasel word.
      • Simplified that statement.
      • Split the long confusing sentence into two easier-to-read sentences.
      • Not sure what to do with that one. Nobody can explain the asymmetric coloration, though several theories exist. The article has three sentences explaining this, and the citation (Tershy, 1992) is at the end of the third sentence.
    • Removed vague references to time.
  • Let me know if you see anything else. Thanks for your help. Neil916 (Talk) 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's good enough now. However, I still don't understand the sentence that begins with It was hypothesized.... Perhaps, my lack of English or I can't understand it because I'm a non-specialist reader of the subject. But I changed my vote. Good job ;-) — Indon (reply) — 11:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I rephrased that sentence to hopefully make the point a little clearer. See if it's better now. Neil916 (Talk) 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, now I see what you meant. Perhaps, if the sentence is rephrased as this: "There is an hypothesis among scientists that the asymetry is due to evolution, because the whale swims on its right side when surface lunging and it often circles to the right while at the surface above a prey patch.", it would have better reading, IMHO. — Indon (reply) — 10:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, comprehensive and several of Indon's suggestions have been applied to the article. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)