I would like to request some impartial reviews of the Sei Whale article to gather opinions of how the article can be improved and whether it meets featured article standards. The use of English in the article should be British English, so if you can hunt down American spellings of words and change them, that would also be appreciated since as an American myself, I don't notice them. Neil916 (Talk) 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 03:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I caught a couple of American spelled words (British: categorise, criticise, behaviour). Behavior is in the quotes at the end; I'm not sure if they should be changed. AZ _t 03:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sei Whale is not quite ready for FA yet, but I nominated it for good article status because it's well-written. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific, please? Your nomination for good article was a few days prior to some substantial additions and revisions. Neil916 (Talk) 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is comprehensive and almost every fact is referenced. It's just some minor changes that were automatically suggested that I see need fixing. --Gray Porpoise 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I just made an addition to the PR script checking for American/British spellings, and here's the output (it's a bit messy looking right now, I'll try to clean it up):
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: color (A) (British: colour), colour (B) (American: color), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), metre (B) (American: meter), analyse (B) (American: analyze), aging (A) (British: ageing), gray (A) (British: grey), grey (B) (American: gray), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ) AZ _t 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I just passed this article for GA, gave comments on the talk page and then realized that this article is on PR. So, here I copied my suggestions for FA:
  • You don't need to wikilink everythings. Especially for metrics, you don't have to ask readers to point so many times of what is kilograms, lb, metres, etc. Please find some terms/jargons that are in the context of the subject.
    • Heh. One of the suggestions in the automated peer review was to wikilink more, so I did that. For now, I'll err on the side of too many wikilinks since they're pretty unobtrusive to a reader. Neil916 (Talk) 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section name of "Historic and current abundance" is not good. What is the meaning of historic abundance? Also avoid "current", because the term can be inaccurate in the future.
    • Good point, I changed it to simply "Abundance". Neil916 (Talk) 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS, only list items that are not yet wikilinked in the main article for the See Also section. Whaling and International Whaling Commission haven been linked so many times, so you don't need to put it again there. Please check also the other items.
    • Checked them and removed the two overlinked articles. Neil916 (Talk) 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To help better verifiability of the article, please include also URL links of certain articles. In many journals, articles have been identified with DOI and you can use url= parameter in the ((cite ...)) template. For example, in this citation:
    • Yablokov, A.V. (1994). "Validity of whaling data". Nature. 367: 108.

    You can use url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/367108a0 to write:

    • Yablokov, A.V. (1994). "Validity of whaling data". Nature. 367: 108.
      • I've already searched for any online links to articles that I could find using Google and Google Scholar and linked to pages that provide access to the articles, even if by subscription. In your example, the page that gets linked to isn't very helpful as it doesn't provide access to the article, it only shows a list of references used by that article. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Neil916 (Talk) 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I just saw the page you brought up had a link to purchase the article online, so I'll correct that reference and take another look at the unlinked references. Neil916 (Talk) 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of the remaining links are to articles in Reports of the International Whaling Commission, which I can't find online anywhere, or to older articles, which I can't find online either. If you are able to find it, please let me know how you did it. Neil916 (Talk) 21:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more comments if I find new ones. Basically, this is a very good article. — Indon (reply) — 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]