Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Exploding whale/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Exploding whale
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 20:55, 17 January 2007.

Exploding whale edit

Messages left at Ta bu shi da yu, Cetaceans and Internet culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Featured Article criterium this doesn't fill, but it seems far shorter than the other FAs. Maybe this in an unpopular choice, as it seems that exploding whale is one of the Wikipedians favourite articles. But still, maybe from the time this was granted FA status to the present day, things have changed. --Montchav 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's your FA criterim: Number 4: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". IMHO, this is too short. --Montchav 17:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. It's quite long enough, and more than comprehensive. --Ta bu shi da yu 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty wrong with this article, but the argument above isn't it. Where is the unnecessary detail? Too short is not an objection: uncomprehensive is. But the article has other problems, anyway - focus on those, and whether it is comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - don't see a problem with the length (too long if anything). Prose is lumpy, structure is poor (listy sections and strange divisions), citations missing for some statements. Yomanganitalk 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that the pop culture needs to be turned into prose; not sure whqt the problem is with structure. As for lumpy prose, what bits are the problem? --Ta bu shi da yu 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it fails comprehensiveness in terms of updating the article to reflect other incidents (check out the refs - there are many), and discuss other "exploding animals" (see the Category). And, all of the bottom sections should be reworked into the article - they contain worthy content. Yomangani, I'm thinking you can work wonders on this one - kinda like an elephant :-) I think the info is there to bring it up to FA standards with a rework. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would a discussion of other exploding animals be particularly germane to the topic? Christopher Parham (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was just thinking of providing additional context; that is, most other accounts of "exploding" animals are apparently myth - that could be covered as a contrast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I strongly disagree. This article is about exploding whales', not exploding animals. No more than a passing mention is necessary. As for other incidents of exploding whaes, which ones are you referring to? --Ta bu shi da yu 16:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the research material is there, I don't think a sentence saying that most other "exploding animals" incidents are myth would be out of place. Now that I've gone through, cleaned up, and alphabeticized all the refs, I think the only one now missing in the story is something mentioned in the Scotland reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Great job Sandy! Which Scotland reference are you referring to though? Whqt sort of thing should we say about other exploding animals, and where should we put it? --Ta bu shi da yu 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • This one [1] - not sure if it's in there yet, don't think so, or if there is followup on this story. As to the other animals, I'd have to read all the articles and see if they have reliable sources. If so, I guess another paragraph at the top of incidents, for context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Exploding animal does have some refs and context that might be summarized into one paragraph somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Other incidents" and "In fiction" needs conversion from its listy format into prose. LuciferMorgan 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of necessary improvements have been made:
    • Delisted pop culture section
    • Renamed pop culture section to focus on fiction (bear in mind most of the article is about pop culture!)
    • fixed prose of other incidents and organised paragraphs to be each about Sth Africa and Iceland
    • added a section lead to "Incidents", also no idea who called it "incidences", don't think that is quite right!
    • removed one uncited fact, wikilinked to show Drawn together
  • Hope that does the trick! --Ta bu shi da yu 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I worked on making the reference style more consistent - besides a light copy edit, not sure what else can be done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? I'm happy closing it without FARC - it's not a stellar FA, but with the rewrite, it seems to meet criteria, so I don't see cause for taking it to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closure: "Too short" is not, as noted, a remove criterion. This seems within criterian otherwise, so I'll close. Marskell 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Exploding_whale/archive1&oldid=1078810564"