Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program

self-nom: I've done quite a bit of work on this article with a view to getting it up to FA status. It covers a subject which I believe to be interesting, unusual, and controversial, and which has received some media coverage lately. It was peer reviewed, and some helpful suggestions have been incorporated — thanks to those who contributed. — Johantheghost 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support Great work --PopUpPirate 16:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. To me, it reads primarily as a defence of the US Navy against common objections, more than as a plain article about the dolphins. Nevertheless, I can't quite put my finger on specific ways it could be improved because there may be common false allegations that need to be discussed. It's well written, but I somehow feel I'm being reassured rather than educated. So I can't quite make up my mind. Stephen Turner 16:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Being truly NPOV is hard, but I've tried :-) I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve it. However, I think that there is a real case backed up by good external references that some stories about the NMMP are really ludicrous — eg. the Hurricane Katrina story basically came from one guy, who has been seriously discredited (see links in the article, eg. the MSNBC story, plus Museum of Hoaxes). Also, there will always be speculation about dolphins with limpet mines strapped to their backs, and I think the mobile mine info is a genuine counter to that. (Ie. I've tried to list facts, not make opinions.) OTOH, I think the animal welfare issue, and the very issue of whether the program should use these animals at all, are real issues, as I've tried to make clear — and provided a link to that petition page. I'll look it over to see if I can squeeze a little more POV out of it. — Johantheghost 16:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've now added significant material to the "Animal Welfare" sec, and done some tweaks to the "In the Media" bit, both in the interests of NPOV. The "Welfare" section is now a bit of a list of anti-NMMP complaints, but I felt I had to list all of the objections which I've seen repeated in "significant" media. Stephen, thanks again for your comment — I think this is a real improvement, and I'd be interested in your thoughts now. — Johantheghost 17:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support. Thank you. I think it's much better now and I'm happy to support. Stephen Turner 18:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

~~Object~~ POV issues here - most of which surrounds the controversy and basically says "well, ok there may have been some controversy but really its always been good"... I'll give some examples:

I've got to say I really don't agree here — just look at the long shopping list of complaints I've added in the "Animal Welfare" section. And I've now noted that the AAALAC accreditation doesn't rule out vivisection. (Not that I think they're doing that, but it doesn't.) Johantheghost 20:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

- " much of this was fuelled by the program's own policy of secrecy, which was abandoned in the early 1990's" - this might be true but this wording is both defensive and dismissive of the supposed controversy in the previous sentence. Needs rewording or something.

Well... Remember that this is the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary; and saying "much of this was fuelled by the program's own policy of secrecy" is not dismissive, because it doesn't mean that the speculation and controversy aren't true. So, I've reworded the section a little to clarify that that was what it was meant to say — and to explicitly mention animal welfare, which I had somehow omitted from the lead. Johantheghost 20:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

- "There have been recurring controversies over the Navy's alleged mistreatment of animals in the program. Today, however, the Navy's position is that positive reinforcement techniques exclusively are used in training of their animals, and that they are looked after in accordance with accepted standards." - Um, arn't you going to tell me what the controversy is before rebutting it? This reads like a navy press release :\. Not only that but the rest of that paragraph continues to rebut an argument that hasn't even been made yet! What? Then the entire paragraph afterwards continues to rebut the nonexistant argument... what's going on here? The third paragraph FINALLY starts to make the opposition's argument, but its a bit disjointed now and those should really go first here so people have a clue what you are rebutting. In fact, what you may need to do here is take the content from the first two paragraphs, which is press-release-ish anyway, and merge that into the controversy paragraphs.

I think you've misunderstood the structure of the section here, which is my fault of course, 'cos I didn't make it too clear. The first sentence or two are supposed to be a summary; the rest of the section then states the Navy's case (adherence to a standard for care of lab animals, basically) and the case against them — I count 9 specific points made against the Navy. I really don't think I'm too much on their side... :-) So, I've tried to clarify this by explicitly making the first bit a separate paragraph — I think it's a lot clearer now.

As for your idea that the 2 navy paras should be merged with the allegations, that wouldn't work, because those paragraphs don't contain any point-by-point rebuttal. The two paragraphs of Navy case basically say that they look after their animals really well, and that they have external oversight to prove it. The three paragraphs of anti-Navy case present a whole bunch of specific complaints, and do actually contain 2 specific pieces of rebuttal. Johantheghost

Anyway, I'll take another look when those are addressed :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me know what you think now! Thanks for your comments; I think it's genuinely better now. Johantheghost 20:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! The wording in the intro is much better, and the warfare section looks a bit better :). What's the purpose of this sentence though - "Based on this accreditation, it is listed by the The Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums as a member"... it seems to have no real content (at least to a layman like myself) - why is it important? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive comment. Yes, I know it's a little opaque, but the point is that they are a member of AMMPA which is a respectable animal-welfare org, so membership is supposed to be a guarantee of certain standards. But, in this case, that membership is based purely on their AAALAC accreditation — ie. AMMPA isn't doing any additional oversight. (I got this from a private email to AMMPA.) BTW, I think the second para of Welfare is a bit big and clunky now — I think the split before "In addition..." is valid, because it goes on to the topic of external oversight, rather than self-supporting claims. No biggie though. — Johantheghost 20:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've clarified the AMMPA situation a bit. — Johantheghost 21:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support ~~Sharks~~Dolphins with frikkin laser beams! I made a few minor tweaks during the peer review process but the bulk of the work on this article has been Johantheghost's, who has done an excellent job on an interesting subject. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 23:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support It is the sort of article that people will want to read. Well, I certainly wanted to. Bobblewik 07:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Support, Though PETA and its supporters won't like it. The fact remains, the use of animals as companions and weapons in war as old as warfare itself. Here is a high quality article on one of the more recent and high-tech examples of this fact. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I hope PETA don't have a problem with the article — though I imagine they have one with the NMMP — since I've really tried to just set out the facts. I hope the "anti" points are pretty well covered. Cheers! Johantheghost 20:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

'Object'. MUCH BETTER

It's good, but needs editing.

1990's—why the apostrophe?