Talk:Pygmy Right Whale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 4, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Lead is too short and does not summarise the article (see criteria 1b)
- Needs more wikilinking to explain words like callosities (see criteria 1d)
- Sentences, particularly in the Physical description section are short and choppy - the second paragraph is unclear at first reading as it is mostly a sequence of comparative sentences.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Lack of inline citations - while not mandatory the lack of a direct reference for statements like least studied of all cetaceans, the Whaling and whale-watching section etc.. is an issue. Statements that are likely to be challenged need unambiguous citations. (see criteria 2b )
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Does not seem to be broad enough
- listed as low risk but I can't see anything on population estimates
- Needs a section on taxonomy and evolution
- Needs details on additional aspects such as swimming speed, them being unusual in having 17 pairs of ribs, differences in this whales baleen as compared to other baleen whales(lists visual differences but I'm sure that there are structural as well).
- 4. Neutral point of view?: good
- 5. Article stability? good
- 6. Images?: needs images – if only pictures of skeletons from museums
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Peripitus (Talk) 08:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Typo?
From the article...
On account of its relatively small size and sparse distribution the Pygmy Right Whale was not the target of a whalers.
perhaps instead
was not a target of whalers