Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whale song (attempt 1)

Whale song

This is a wonderful article that includes great graphics and a funky sound file. Certainly worth considering for featured article status and appearing on our Main Page. But don't trust me. Read the article for yourselves and decide. Danny 02:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Good detail and well-organized article, with good use of supplementary visuals to enhance it. Ben Babcock 02:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. (1) While the article has detail and presents arguments on the purpose of the songs, there is no indication of where any of it came from or who makes those arguments--this article is not verifiable. (Minor, but the one reference included does not actually indicate the article cited, but only the magazine, making it more difficult to verify.) (2) There are many two-sentence paragraphs or h2s, which I think is poor for readability. (3) The lead section does not summarize the article. While I do not object on this because I do not know the subject, I have to say the article feels very far from comprehensive. Half of "Baleen whale sound production" is devoted to one whale's unusual frequency, for example? 119 03:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• ,Object, I agree with 119s points, the information should all be referenced, especially since the article is a summary of primary research--nixie 04:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the reference point has been addressed, there are some other issues. I think that Animal echolocation needs to be better described in the article, as I understand it this type of communication has only been shown to be the case for dolphins and killer whales. The function of the humbacks song seems, from a scan of recent literature, to be a contentious matter since noone has tested to see if humpback whales listen for and respond to echoes generated by their songs, this may also be the case for other whales. There probably should be some expansion of the tooth and baleen sound production sections, or seperate discussions on other species with well studied songs to address the comprehensivness point, false killer whales for example seem to be the subject of numerous vocalisation studies. A section on the use of whale songs to locate and track whales would also be a good addition to the article, also a descripion of how the sound is measured would be helpful to the reader. --nixie 03:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • Thanks. I will copy this across to the talk page to work on it. Pcb21| Pete 07:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 119's view above reflects my concerns, especially about the comprehensiveness of the article. Phils 17:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my objection. However, I do not (yet) support this FAC. I will be unable to check how the article evolves over the next few days, and considering my concerns were pretty much exactly those of other 'objectors', I decided it's better to let others decide whether the article should become a FA, based on the changes User:Pcb21 and others will make. Phils 16:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• I wrote this article, spent bloody ages creating those diagrams and furthermore know the material is good. I put the references I used in a "references" section, though someone, in a fit of intellectual dishonesty, moved two out of three of them into a further reading section without even commenting while. To be honest, I'm not so bothered about getting more of my articles featured that I want to jump the very vaguely defined hoops of the objectors so far. If there is a problem with style (lead section, paragraph length, whatever), then please fix it yourself to improve the quality of Wikipedia rather just write about it here and expect others to do it for you. If there are problems with content, be specific about what they are so someone with knowledge of the subject can fix them. Pcb21| Pete 22:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone has gone out of their way to criticize the article for the purpose of being unhelpful. Danny nominated it to be a featured article, so we compare it to Wikipedia:What is a featured article. If you wish he didn't, then you can edit that article fine without any involvement here. 119 02:02, 3 May 2005 (UT)

• • Comprehensiveness is a valid objection to a featured article. An objection to a FAC cannot be interpreted as a depreciation of the author's efforts; if we start thinking like this, we might as well think of another process to decide which articles should become featured. The article is great, but I feel it does not completely cover the subject (or, more precisely, give a complete overview of it). Phils 05:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • To 119 and Phils I think my grumblings have been misunderstood (almost certainly my fault for not being clear). 119, as you rightly point out the current nature of FAC is to have a combative process, some users trying to be custodians of the gold standard and others trying to achieve it. Within this model, I think your complaints are fine. However my feeling is that this gladatorial process has forgotten the purpose of FAs. The bottom line is that every procedure, policy and process within Wikipedia should be about faciliting the creation of quality content. Within this in mind, FAC should be area for active collaboration and improvement of already decent articles. It is so so much more fun for a content creator to read "I refactored the lead section to make it describe what's to come better" than "Object, poor lead section". Or "this content is fine but didn't feel complete so I googled and found [this web site] that suggests there is more to say about baleen songs." So basically what I am pining for is a change in culture. Many apologies for biting you in the process of trying to get this point across. Pcb21| Pete 07:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is a great informative article. the effort put in it should definitely be praised. Correct information and songs makes this article fit for Wikipedia front page status.
• Support. I agree with pcb21. He put time and effort into this. This is also a correct, informative article. What's wrong with it?
  • The two above votes by IP 69.169.54.227. Phils 05:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that prior to his foray here, the editor had made three edits, two of which were vandalism and one was nonsense, I think zero weight should be attached to his votes, and have struck them. Pcb21| Pete 07:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent original diagram and sound; clear, crisp writing. I remember being amazed by this page when I first saw it (the idealized whalesong timeline is somehow very cool). Of course it can be improved, as can every FAC; but already worthy of featuring. +sj + 07:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)