Talk:Whale/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Awaiting "Whaling" and "In culture" items, see Comments.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This ambitious article was barely ready for GAN at the time of submission, being over-long, doubtfully focused on the topic through confusion with the closely-related Cetacea, unconventionally organized, unreliably sourced, and with rather weak coverage especially of the human aspects. All of these aspects have been markedly improved during the GA process and the article is now clearly up to GA standard. It will require very considerable further work to approach FA nomination; some suggestions are given below, and reviewers can be expected to pay close attention to systematic referencing and the history of the topic, among other things. There remain many related articles in need of reorganization and referencing, including articles on groups of whales, whaling, and lists of whale taxa. Since most of these focus on only one aspect (taxonomy or history, for example), they should prove less complex than the current article, which can reasonably be described as a whale of a topic. So, well done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

General comments

Please check for dead links such as Nanuq (Cetacousin). There may be archived pages which can be linked. Otherwise they'd best be replaced.

-- Sorry, I guess I missed that when I was looking over the websites. done.

There are several blogs used as sources, eg. Jessica Hullinger's 7 Fascinating Facts about Narwhals or Lord Geekington's Two Finned Dolphin. These are not considered Reliable Sources unless the author is demonstrably an authority on a topic. Similarly, a conspiracy fiction author like C. R. Berry can be presumed not to be reliable by profession and should not be used. The use of Wikia sites such as for Cryptid Whales is not satisfactory; these uncertified tertiary sources are, like Wikipedia, not assured to be reliable. Please check each doubtful site/blog use (not only these examples) and either justify it with evidence that it is reliable or replace it.

-- Yes, I realized, which is why I placed much more reliable citations next to them (for the most part). I have little access to books and poor internet access. I'll try to find something more reliable for the narwhals. I'll replace the Lord Geekington and C.R. berry refs. For questionable sources, I've provided (what I think to be) a reliable source next to or near it.

OK, then please remove the flaky ones, leaving the better ones.

-- That'll take some time. I'll get around to it tomorrow.

-- Done.

The tone of comments such as "(since they can't chew)" is too colloquial for a global encyclopedia, and the parentheses aren't ideal either. Something along the lines of "because they are unable to chew" would be more appropriate. Please check the article for remarks in similar style.

-- working on it...

-- Okay, I think I've finished that.

Please expand every usage of abbreviated words like "they're, can't" and "don't" (for example to "they are", "can not" and "do not").

-- Really? No contractions? Okay...

Please ensure that every web page cited has an accessdate. It may be wise to archive some of these.

-- It may be too late for access dates... Do I just put today's date?

Yes, and consider adding an archivelink.

-- Archivelink? Never heard of it.

The idea is to go to www.archive.org and locate an archived copy of the web page (or indeed of a dead page). Then the URL of that archived copy is preserved in a parameter in the cite template. Doesn't matter for now but worth finding out about.

-- I had to do it three times but it finally saved. All refs now have access dates. done.

Lists

The use of lists in text articles is one of the GA criteria which calls for some caution; lists are not forbidden but they are problematic all the same. We need to ask here why we should enumerate the species of baleen and toothed whales at all, given that these are listed already in List of whale species, they all have their own articles, and the families can all be navigated to via the taxobox. Further, there is already an article on the whole order, Cetacea, which is monophyletic and therefore a good taxon. This points up an awkward fact: "Whale" is not a taxon at all, but a paraphyletic grouping selected by size from the cetacea. Finally, even if this was a proper taxon, the normal treatment for an Order-sized article is to describe the Families it contains, with one or two examples of interesting genera or species, rather than attempting to describe everything that's covered by subsidiary articles. Therefore, I suggest, and I know this is a bit of a wrench, but there it is.

-- Counterargument: What?! Whale is an informal grouping, and which cetaceans are whales is a must since there's any clear definition is hard to find. GA articles, such as Tiger, have lists and descriptions of all nine subspecies (which is actually where I got the idea from). If the Whale article can't have a list and description of each species, then why can they? Each box contains basic info (stats, diet, binomial name, feeding behaviour...). Describing the basic stats, diet, and feeding behaviour in a properly organized list seems far better than the alternative which is describing each species's individual behaviour. By the way, I looked at the GA criteria and I didn't see anything on lists.

The main problem is repetition of subsidiary article material, rather than what should be here, which is description of the group as a whole. The article on Insects does not attempt to describe every species of insect, nor even every family: it correctly focuses on what is common to all members of the group. If you can't go with this, I'll be happy to fail the article immediately for lack of focus, but if you look at what will be left, you will see that there is actually more than enough to discuss, from the fossil record and phylogeny to whale anatomy and diving physiology, feeding and reproductive behaviors, whaling history and so on. It will make a far more sharply focused article, so please just do it, it won't take long and the article will be far better for it.

Oh fine.

1) please make it clear that whales are paraphyletic, and that for taxonomy readers should go to Cetacea and to its included families.

2) include a diagram like the one at the top of Paraphyly showing the relationship of whales and dolphins and porpoises. (This is not mandatory but would be wise and helpful).

-- Whale is a sort of informal grouping between cetaceans as with dolphins; no clear definition was made to distinguish the two, and I don't think there's any such diagram. done.

What do you mean, done? Can't see any change. A diagram would not be hard to make; I can help if you like.

There's no diagram on WikiMedia Commons, but I stated specifically in the lead in the second sentence "They are an informal grouping of marine mammals within the order Cetacea, excluding dolphins and porpoises..." If you could upload a cladogram, or find someone else to do it, that would be great.

Cladogram done; a paraphyly diagram could also be drawn. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That was quick. Paraphyly diagram? Would this have to be uploaded onto the Commons? If so, I can't do it because my computer would probably crash. If this is the case, could you or someone you know upload it?

Drawn one.

3) remove both lists, replacing them with a brief paragraph on each suborder, and if you wish with a word or two on each family within the suborders. I'd suggest the resulting section should contain two short subsections, each with a single image, i.e. one baleen and one toothed whale image. The family descriptions should briefly say what is distinctive about them as families, so - baleen, filter feeding, many of large size; toothed, fish/squid (etc) diet. If you are sorry for the material, much of it might find a home in List of whale species.

-- What?! Whale is an informal grouping, and which cetaceans are whales is a must since there's any clear definition is hard to find; I found it after three months in WikiProject Cetaceans... Besides, all that info about their diet is already under a section called "Foraging and predation" and the part about dentition should be in the "Anatomy" section.

By all means list their names in one sentence if you feel the need. The text on each group can be as brief as you please and need not contain much on diet: it would be logical to connect toothed with predatory feeding, baleen with filter feeding, even if in a single sentence, which is why I mentioned it.

4) For the Extinct genera, the main link to the List of extinct cetaceans is sufficient. Please remove the three boxed lists. These are redundant with the main list (or if not, they are in error), and not helpful to the general reader wanting to know about "whales" - if they are needed anywhere, it would be in Cetacea, not here.

-- Yeah, I guess you're right. I'll find a place for it there. done.

Thanks. Actually I meant there's a place for the wikilink in the text of the article, not just the See also.

-- Oh. Should I re-add it?

-- Yeah, I'll just re-add it.

5) Again, there is no justification for the coverage of Archaeocetes in this article to be more detailed per species than in the main article on that topic, so please remove the list as undue. I suggest a single paragraph supported by perhaps two images (say, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus to give the general idea).

-- Archaeocetes are, nonetheless, the most important part of the evolution of whales. I looked over the "Archaeocetes" article, and info on them is not very extensive.

Then most of the material probably belongs in that article and can be moved there. What is needed here is a history in text, not a list.

6) the taxobox is somewhat misleading, and could be said to be actually wrong in this context, making the whales look monophyletic, when they aren't a taxon at all. If you want to keep the taxobox, it ought to show and specifically exclude Delphinidae and Phocoenidae, but since orcas and belugas are also Delphinoidea, a diagram showing the exclusions would frankly be better. My preference would be to remove the taxobox. There is actually a simpler taxobox in Cetacea, which is the relevant taxon here.

-- Dolphin is also a paraphletic group, and they have a taxobox, so I thought it would be okay for this; if dolphin's keeping it, then I want to keep it. How would I specifically exclude those two families? I mean, I've already listed the names of the families in the subgroups.

Simply state that dolphins are not generally considered whales, that's all. A gap in a list of families is hard to spot, specially if a reader doesn't even expect it to be there, so lists are not a good way of showing this sort of thing. The argument that other articles do things isn't a good one (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - we are free to cut down the dolphin one - but I already indicated that removing the taxobox is optional.

Okay, in the lead I said that "whale is an informal grouping of cetaceans, excluding dolphins and porpoises..." Is that okay?

How would I go about specifically stating that dolphins aren't whale using the taxobox?

By naming their family and adding "(excluded)" or something of that sort.

I don't know, the taxobox would get kind of full and confusing (e.g., people would think "why put families that aren't whales?"). Plus, your most recent edit, in the taxonomy section at least, has made it evident that dolphins are not whales. By the way, I'll just remove the subgroup section from the taxobox because it just says "see text".

We should either remove the taxobox altogether (this isn't a taxon) or leave the "see text" as, given the existence of the taxobox, they'll look for families. I'll put the subgroup bit back.

Alright then, but I'm going to remove the "Dolphins, porpoises not usually considered whales" bit.

Sorry...

Specific comments

The existing cladogram is very beautiful but somewhat off-topic, as it shows (much) too much detail of ruminants, pigs, camels and horses, and fails to make clear which cetaceans are whales - I can see Delphinidae but not Phocoenidae, for instance; and we don't need so much detail on the fossil groups either.

-- So what? Should I delete? Move it? Expand the caption?

I'd suggest replacing it with a small cladogram that has just one branch for ruminant, one for pigs, and so on, and that shows dolphins and porpoises.

There's no such cladogram available in WikiMedia Commons. That's the only (english) cladogram that has anything to do with cetaceans.

So we need to make a new one. Various people including me could make one, it isn't difficult.

There are no fewer than 3 sections named toothed whales (and similarly for baleen): ""Odontocetes" in Taxonomy, but the section actually covers anatomy, sonar, habitat, coloration, and feeding as well as taxonomy; "Toothed or Baleen" in Evolution, which also covers quite a bit of taxonomy; and then Species. I suggest you have exactly one section on each suborder, with a {{main|}} link to the relevant article. Currently the Whale article is trying to cover not only every whale species but full details of each suborder, which what subsidiary articles are for.

-- The two sections in the Taxonomy section are meant as contrast to each other. They describe the differences between odontocetes and mysticetes, which would be anatomy, sonar, coloration, and feeding. You can't talk taxonomy of whales without going into detail of the two different suborders which are vastly different from each other. The name "Toothed or Baleen" kind of implies a difference between the toothed whales and the baleen whales. By the way, I already have a section on each suborder (extinct or otherwise) with a {{main|}} link to the relevant article.

Yes, but the result is multiple sections on the groups, and as stated each section wanders over the other sections' territory, so they seem to need merging. The feeling is that each one is written by different, perhaps many hands: they do not appear highly focused.

-- The species section is now gone, so what is it about the "Toothed or baleen" section (which sentence specifically) strays into taxonomy territory (besides the echolocation)?

See next item.

-- I (reluctantly) took down the "Toothed or baleen" section.

In contrast, the Anatomy, Life history and behaviour, and Ecology are correctly focused on whales as a group.

-- Odontocetes and mysticetes basically share the same traits when it comes down to Life history and behaviour and Ecology, so not much is needed to describe the differences between the two suborders.

The article is not about the two suborders, so the task is to create a unified text on each topic which touches on suborders only as needed. Right now it contains lengthy sections on suborders and on species, which is simply wrong.

-- Yeah I see that, but it is legitimate in the "Taxonomy" section because that's all it really needs to talk about. So basically the main problem area is the "Evolution" section?

The taxonomy section should talk only about the dry details of classification; the evolution section only about evolutionary history; all the rest should be in a section which is often called "Biology", which can contain Locomotion, Senses, Behaviour, Life cycle and so on as necessary.

In culture

Perhaps the bible's "Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook?" deserves a mention.

-- I personally haven't read the bible; info on that was when I started. I've been trying to get people who're familiar with the bible for months, but with no success.

Try Leviathan for a quick summary.

Added one sentence about Leviathan in Job 41:1-34. See if it suits. -- Elmidae (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

The section needs to say a little more about Moby Dick's nature as it is central to the novel and indeed to American culture.

-- I personally haven't read "Moby Dick"; info on that was present before I started.

All the same, it needs doing. There's more than enough for an overview at Moby Dick.

Added one additional sentence about nature & inspiration for the Moby Dick. See if it suits. -- Elmidae (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

The section needs to say something about whales in the fine arts, e.g. William Duke Oswald Brierly Thevet 1574 - indeed, the Thevet image would go well in the history of whaling section.

-- There're already paintings of whales in the article (Engraving by William van der Gouwen depicting a stranded sperm whale being butchered, and painting by Abraham Storck depicting dutch whalers near Spitsbergen)

Indeed, but they don't add up to an account of whales in culture at the moment. The point is not the number of images, which may be few, but a section on the arts, which would reasonably be illustrated.

The history up to say 1900 should be in a section named History; the current Conservation and history looks quite recentist (prominent dates are 2013 and 2008), so the historical element is obscured. The history should briefly describe how and where whales were hunted; how they were processed; what they were used for; and which countries were largely involved. Since this involves humans, the History should go in the Interaction with humans section.

-- People only started caring about the conservation of whales in the 1900's. Whaling really took off in the 19th and 20th centuries. Before that was really myths, legend, (which belong in the culture section) and aboriginal hunters (and there's not a lot of that which isn't recent). Really, whales went basically unnoticed in a non-cultural view point. If there were a section on that, it would probably be two sentence, or would replace the "In culture" section.

The History up to 1900 will be mainly on whaling; after 1900, mainly Conservation. I meant, therefore, that they'd make good separate sections; and that the pre-1900 stuff probably needed expansion. 19th century is after all pre-1900.

Still, conservation of the whales only began in mid-1960's, and whaling still is a prevalent issue today (see whaling controversy). The "Conservation and whaling" section stays.

There absolutely needs to be a Conservation section. Please devote energies to editing not arguing.

So what you're saying is that you want the "Interactions with humans" section to have six sections: "In captivity", "Whaling before 1900", "Whaling after 1900", "Conservation", "In culture", and "Cryptid whales"?

Oh dear. Look, we need something on the human history of interaction with whales, which would divide neatly into early/hunting and late/conservation. This might give the structure:

6. Humans. 6.1 History. 6.1.1 Whaling [from the dawn of time etc etc]. 6.1.2 Conservation. 6.2 In literature and art. 6.3 In captivity. 6.4 Cryptids.

So the "History" is just going to be a heading with all the word going into the subheadings Whaling and Conservation? That seems like a good plan. Done.

The section on Cryptid whales is unduly long; for example the Trunko paragraph should be just a few lines, with most of the "reputedly" material excised.

-- Trunko is a cryptid, meaning all of it is "reputedly" material, but, nonetheless, a worthy topic for "Interactions with humans"; I would've fit it in the "Culture" section, but decided not to. Also, there're no articles for Rhinoceros dolphins and high-finned sperm whales and they redirect to the Cryptid whale section, so it kind of does need to be substantial (like more than two sentences) for such cryptids.

OK, but all the same it's far too long at the moment. If you have material you want to save that there isn't room for here, by all means make a subsidiary article on Cryptid whales (right now that redirects here) and link it from here.

Note that there's a talk page discussion about the "cryptid" section, with most people arguing that it should be split completely from this article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Then that might be best; but I'd favour leaving a link and a brief paragraph on the topic, which will at least stop people from wondering where it is and recreating it at length. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

-- I'm still not too convinced this needs to be deleted. Cryptic whales fits in well with whale in culture. Perhaps I could put the "Cryptid whales" section as a subsection of "In culture". Honestly, whales in mainland European culture mainly show up in these cryptids, as far as I know. I'm against turning it into a stub-class stand alone article, though.

It would be a C-class at least, and it's worth a separate topic, so let's not talk of deletion but creation. By all means leave a short subsection in "In culture", a good idea. It's not the main cultural aspect of whales - that's probably a combination of hunting, revulsion at hunting, and whale song, not counting all non-European parts of the world. I have created the article and the main link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: The paragraph on diving is uncited. LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Done

References

Ref 5 - better source needed.

Ref 6 - better source needed.

Ref 35 comes from this book - please fill in {{cite book}} fields.

Ref 37 - better source needed.

Ref 40 - better source needed.

Ref 45 - please add fields for date, publisher.

Ref 49 - better source needed.

Refs 61, 62, 63 - better (scientific) source needed. 62 is dead, too.

Ref 67 - pages needed (and preferably DOI number too).

Ref 68 - better source needed (and it's a dead link).

Ref 69 - better (scientific) source needed.

Ref 71 - better source needed.

Ref 72 - better (scientific) source needed.

Ref 76 - please add fields for date, author.

Ref 78 - better (scientific) source needed.

Ref 80 - please add fields for date, author.

Ref 82 - please replace with the PLoS ONE ref in the sciencemag article, ie Peter Roopnarine, Joe Roman, James J. McCarthy. The Whale Pump: Marine Mammals Enhance Primary Productivity in a Coastal Basin. PLoS ONE, 2010; 5 (10): e13255 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013255 (needs formatting).

Ref 97 - please update URL and supply full citation.

Ref 99 - author's name is Metcalfe.

Refs 115, 116 - please add date of publication.

Refs 125, 126, 127, 128: suggest delete all four and the supported text which is over-detailed (Wikipedia is "NOT NEWS") and has the wrong tone; the first sentence (ref 124) is basically all that needs to be said. If you want to say a little more, find a better source and rewrite the paragraph.

Ref 132 - redundant and poor source, suggest delete.

Ref 133 - better source needed.

Whale communication - citation needed for clicks and whistles.

Images on Commons

Please edit the text on the Commons page of "Features of a blue whale" to show its origins at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as it currently looks as if it was self-created by a user (the license is therefore wrong).

I've added a license.

Same for "Features of a sperm whale skeleton".

-- So to do this, I just put "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" in the "Sources" section?

No, you have to look at the source. Actually this one is described properly, even if one of the source-of-the-source images is labelled 'self'.

File:Humpbackwhale2.ogg lacks proper source and author info at Commons and should not be used. Perhaps there's another audio file with better sourcing on Commons.

Please add a ref to Roman and McCarthy 2010 (see the Commons page) to the "Whale pump" caption.

Could you please check with someone at Commons that the "Sperm whale weather-vane" image has a valid license as it looks doubtful.

Lead

The first paragraph is a muddle. It needs to say paraphyletic, probably in the first sentence, mentioning the dolphins and porpoises. Then it needs to explain the 2 suborders; and I'm not sure it's even right to list all the families here, given we've already divided the group into two, and said what it doesn't contain. Then I'd mention the hippo etc, as now, as the last sentence. Perhaps the difference between the 2 suborders currently in paragraph 2 should be merged with the suborder bit in sentence 2 of paragraph 1. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

-- naming the families that aren't whales seems counter-intuitive. By the way, where does it say what whale doesn't contain? I've mentioned that whales are an informal grouping. The info about hippos is on the last sentence. I don't think I should merge the differences between the suborders, which is one of the more important and fundamental info on whales, into the lead section.

As long as it clearly summarizes the article it will be fine. Saying that whales are all cetaceans except dolphins and porpoises is not counterintuitive, it's about the only way of saying what they are at all concisely. I said hippos were rightly the last sentence! And I said second para (of lead), not second section of article - please read carefully, and move the Odonto/Mysti distinction higher up the lead. Oh, and please use colons to indent your replies.

So you want the Odonto/Mysti paragraph to be the first paragraph as opposed to the second paragraph?

The lead's job is to summarize the whole article, section by section, in a few crisp paragraphs. These are best written by scanning down the fully-revised article and summarizing it chunk by chunk, which we're not yet ready to do. For what it's worth, I think the lead is now very readable and probably close to where it should be; if it needs tweaking later, we can do that.

The lead is repeatedly cited; I suggest that all these refs be removed, and that any facts stated only in the lead be moved to the body of the article (refs 5, 8, 9, 10, and 13 appear only in the lead).

-- done

Not quite finished: 10 refs remain.

-- You wanted all of them gone? Sorry, I thought you meant delete the ones that show up in others parts of the article. done

Remaining items in Human section

Which nations went whaling from earliest times? In the 18th and 19th centuries? I've restored the 1574 image at the top of the history - it's the oldest image, of obvious historical interest in this article, and it needs direct discussion.

In fact, I'd suggest that more or less all the images should be discussed in the text: firstly, their cultural implications (whaling nations, ports, economic importance); secondly, the artistic progress they imply (woodcuts to oil paintings, for instance).

A reasonably detailed history of whale and whaling art remains to be provided, but it is not one of the "main points" of the subject for GA; it would be needed to create a comprehensive coverage (for FA).

Where did those nations go whaling?

This isn't terribly well covered but it's just about sufficient for GA.

How important was whaling to those nations (economically, culturally)? Which ports did it enable to flourish? There is considerably more to say; for example, your Whaling Museum source describes 33 whaleships lost in 1871 alone, and that's just the American side of the story.

This isn't very well covered either, but it's just about sufficient for GA. Much more would be needed for comprehensive coverage at FA level.

Please find sources for other whaling nations, including Japanese, French and British whalers, and briefly describe their history also. Read Whaling and History of whaling to form a concise, well-sourced summary.

This remains a task for improvement but is probably only marginally a "main point".

The whaling section is becoming more disjointed through piecemeal fixes; please read the history, then look over the section and rework it to form a brief but coherent account that describes the main features of that subject. For example, the moratorium is introduced in 3 places; obviously it's important but perhaps its mentions could be grouped in the Conservation section.

The section remains the weakest in the article but does touch on the "main points".

Which were the subsistence whaling nations? Which whales do subsistence whalers catch? Details with sources.

-- There aren't any subsistence whaling nations; there would be no point in it for them without a profit.

Please. Forget "profit". There are nations and other groups which had and in some cases (like the Inuit) still have rights as "subsistence" whalers; the term does not imply that the nation lives only on whales. For the Inuit, whale meat is important to them culturally and something they specially prize in their diet; these facts can readily be cited. Details with sources of the major groups or nations and what they catch are required.

What is the IWC? It seems to be introduced as an acronym, as if it was obvious what it was; and its function is implied to be anti-whaling, whereas its charter was to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" - sounds like supporting the appropriate catching of whales, no? Seems to deserve a bit of coverage, perhaps a paragraph.

Sorry, I put the full name in the Species section, and when I deleted it, I completely forgot about it.

We still need an account of the IWC's origins, its charter, and how it changed its purpose from pro- to anti-whaling. With sources. In other words, the Conservation section needs expanding.

Could you please stop bunching all the images at the top (and chopping both images and captions); browsers vary widely, and it is more convenient specially on small screens for images to be in ones or twos next to the relevant text (by subsection or paragraph). Thank you.