Talk:Sei whale

message: What does "The whale's dive sequence is more regular than its close relative." in the ==Behaviour== section mean? What close relative? Gene Thomas 11:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dive sequence

message: The beginning of the Physical Description section contained duplicated and slightly contradictory weights for adults.  Also, the weights were given variously in tons and tonnes; I've settled on tonnes, which is quite possibly wrong.  I'll try to find a source for correct weights.  I always thought a ton was 2000lb, and a tonne 1000kg, shows what I know.  Kfor 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical Description

message: This is definitely a Good Article. The prose is well-written and easily understandable by a non-specialist reader, well-referenced with many peer-reviewed journals as sources, broad enough and nicely illustrated with diagrams (I especially like the physical characteristic figure). It is really like reading an encyclopaedic book. Great job and well done for the hard works of the editors. This article has a very good prospect for featured article, but there are still many things needed to improve this article for the FA-level. I have put some comments below for further improvements:
* 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.
* 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.
* Per WP:MOS, only list items that are not yet wikilinked in 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.
* 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  template. For example, in this citation:
** 
*:You can use url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/367108a0 to write:
** 
Good luck for further improvements. — Indon (reply) — 14:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA passed 

message: I have looked reponses of my comments in the above thread at the PR page. Since this article has been submitted to FAC, I'd rather to make other comments here in the talk page. Below are just small writing comments for a better encyclopaedic article:
* Please replace "the most current (YYYY) ....." phrases into "As of YYYY, ...". The word "current" is vague in time, because there would be another data in the future that "the most current" becomes obsolete.
* Also with "Current whaling" section name. I would suggest "Post ICW protection whaling condition" or something like that.
* The "Abundance" section name is better than previous one, but it is still an awkward section name. How about: "Population distribution" ?
* There is one citation from LoveToKnow Classic Encyclopedia. This is not a reliable source as authors are anonymous. Please find more reliable one.
— Indon (reply) — 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other comments 

message: Any chance of getting a photograph of a Sei Whale's skull?  I don't think there are any in the West Coast whaling museums, but there might be on the East Coast, and I don't know about European.  This lack doesn't impact its FA strength, though.  I just like the skulls and think it would enhance the article.
* "a fish that appears off the coast of Norway at the same time as the Sei Whale"
* -->at the same time of the year as the Sei
* "primarily marine copepods and krill."
* okay, but maybe ---> "primarily copepods, krill and other zooplankton." marine is redundant, imo
* "although it continues to be hunted to a limited extent under controversial scientific research programmes conducted by Iceland and Japan"
* --->"under controversial research programmes" scientific is unnecessary, makes it too wordy
Overall, and again, very strong and appropriate lead section, imo that should not be changed substantively.  KP Botany 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GOod suggestions, I have made those changes. Neil916 (Talk) 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph comments 

message: * Image caption: "A cladogram of animals related to the Sei Whale. Click on the picture to enlarge."
* --->"A cladogram depicting the relationships of baleen whales. Click on the image to enlarge."  Did you do the image, and can you highlight the Sei Whale by showing it in red?  "A cladogram depicting the relationships of baleen whales, the Sei Whale is shown in red."
**I didn't create the image, but it was public domain, so I modified it with Paint and highlighted the Sei Whale in red.  Changed the caption.
* the third paragraph should be moved up behind the first, making the second paragraph made the third one, or better yet, put the second paragraph first
**Changed the order from 1-2-3-4 to 1-3-2-4. I think the paragraph describing the common names is best left first, since subsequent paragraphs go into more details about the origins of the common names.
* "Rudolphi's Rorqual, Pollack Whale, Coalfish Whale, Sardine Whale," 
* Do you know why it's spelled "pollack" here, instead of "pollock?"  Not sure it is necessary for the article.
**The reference cited for the common names spells it "pollack", and the Pollock article mentions in the first sentence that the "pollack" spelling is usually listed first in US and UK dictionaries (although that assertion is uncited and I won't vouch for it).  Mainly because of the first reason.
* "Sei Whales are rorquals (family Balaenopteridae), a family that includes the Humpback Whale,"
* ---> "Sei Whales are rorquals (family Balaenopteridae), a family of the baleen whales that includes the Humpback Whale, "
**Done.
* does rorqual refer to the ventral grooves? can a note on this be added?
**Done.
* "However, it is not known when the members of these families diverged from each other."
* unclear which families you're discussing, families in the Mysticetik I assume, so:  "However, little is known about when members of the various families in the Mysticeti, including the Balaenopteridae, diverged from each other."
**Sounds better.  I didn't write that part of the text originally, I shamelessly cut-and-pasted it from the Blue Whale article and had also integrated it into the Fin Whale article.  I'll make a note to myself to correct it in those articles as well after all the copyediting is done.
* "The specific name is the Latin word borealis, meaning northern. In the Pacific, the whale has been called the Japan Finner; "finner" was a common term used to refer to rorquals."
*  Why are rorquals called the finners?  Discuss the dorsal fins and the name.  Heck if I remember, as I Odontoceti have dorsal fins, too.  
** (Drat), the web site I used as a source for that reference is offline at the moment.  Hopefully it comes back up because it was a great article.  I'll check back with it later.  I can't find anything about why they were called finners, just that it is another name for rorqual.
* "In Japanese the whale was called Iwashi kujira, or Sardine Whale, named for a fish that the whale has been observed to eat in the Pacific.[11]"  Which word is whale and which sardine?  Why the first word capitalized and second not?  Self-explanatory if "Iwashi" means whale.
**From what I can find, "kujira" means whale and "iwashi" means sardine.  My original source had the capitalization that way (same source as previous bullet that is offline).  In the meantime, I'm going to change the capitalization to all lower case. 
* "Two geographically separated subspecies have been identified"
* "Two geographical supspecies"  are they always separated, or do their territories overlap at all? 
**They do not overlap at all.  I've expanded it somewhat, diverging from your suggestion, in order to make it more understandable to the layperson.
KP Botany 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Taxonomy and naming 

message: * Image caption: "Baleen whale (Mysticeti) physical characteristics" but I see it's part of the image.
**I don't understand your comment.
***I don't like the caption on the image, title case.  But you can't change that, and it doesn't impact the overall quality of the article.
</BR>
* "The Sei Whale is the third largest member of the Balaenopteridae family, after the Blue Whale and the Fin Whale."
* --->Can you throw a tonnage in on the blue and fin for comparisons? "after the Blue Whale (150-170 tons) and the Fin Whale (70 tonnes)," or whatever is a correct range for both, but also great whale weights are generally reported in tons, can the weights be given in the more familiar unit, rather than kilograms?  (You don't have to correct to my American English dialect--tons versus tonnes--of course.)
**Added comparisons and converted kilograms and pounds to tonnes and tons.
</BR>
* [Can] you include "great whale" or "whalebone whale" instead of Mysticeti anywhere?  I forgot about this, until now.
**Added to the taxonomy section
</BR>
* "The Southern Sei Whale is larger than the Northern Sei Whale, and females are considerably larger than males."
* --->Typically with marine mammals that have a southern and northern population the southern population is larger, can this be included, also, I commented earlier about this, and also, are female members of the Mysticeti generally larger than males?  I'm still pretty sure there is something unique about sexual dimorphism in Sei Whales, but can't find it anywhere.  Not necessary for FA status, though.
**Can you find me a citation for the southern vs. northern population fact?  I was unable to find one.  When you mentioned the female vs. male thing, it didn't ring any bells; the Fin Whale females are also typically larger than males.
***I will see what I can find.
</BR>
* "The largest known Sei Whale measured 20 metres (66 ft),[4] and weighed between 40,000 and 45,000 kilograms (88,000–100,000 lb)."
* --->Was this a northern or southern?
**None of the sources that repeat this information give any indication where it was captured.
</BR>
* "The whale's body is typically a dark steel grey with irregular light grey to white markings on the ventral surface."
* --->"with irregular light grey to white markings on the ventral surface, or towards the front of the lower body. I like to explain technical terms the first time they are used in the text to make the article stand alone.
**Done.
</BR>
* "The tail is thick and the fluke is relatively small in relation to body size."
* --->"and each fluke, or lobe, is relatively small"  Or "The tail, with its flukes, or lobes, is thick and small relative to the whale's body size."  You might word it better than I do.
**Done.
</BR>
* "These are believed to be caused by ectoparisitic copepods (Penella spp.),[14] lampreys,[15] or possibly "cookie-cutter" sharks (Isistius brasiliensis)."
* --->Include scientific name in parantheses for lampreys, also.  I guess Hyperoartia?
**Done.
</BR>
* "This rorqual is a filter feeder, using its baleen to obtain its food from the water by opening its mouth, engulfing large amounts of water, then straining it out through its baleen plates, trapping any food items inside the mouth."
* --->"using its baleen plates to obtain" and "engulfing large amounts of water and food" or "water and zooplankton" and "then straining the water out through the baleen" or baleen plates in the last one.
**Done.
</BR>
* "An adult has between 300 and 380 ashy-black baleen plates on each side of the mouth, about 48 centimetres (19 in) long."
* --->"each about 48 centimetres (19 in) long."
**Done.
</BR>
* "Viewed from the side, the Sei Whale's head has a slight arch that differs from the comparatively flat profile of the Fin Whale."
* --->Where's the arch?  The whole head arches?  "Viewed from the side, the Sei Whale's head appears to arch/ appears as an arch..."  I don't quite follow this.
**If you look at the profile of the Fin Whale, the upper surface of the whale's profile is relatively flat, whereas the profile of the Sei Whale has a fairly small arch or bump on the top edge of the profile, about 3/4 of the section between the tip of the snout and the eye.  That's what this sentence refers to, but I needed a better way to say it than "the head has a bump on it".   I changed the wording somewhat, see if it's clearer now.
***I'll look, still don't understand it.  
****Oh, I see now, thanks.  
</BR>
* "Sei Whales usually move alone[19] or in small groups of up to six individuals."
* ---> maybe, "Sei Whales usually travel alone..."
**Done.
</BR>
* "They appear to not have any well-defined social structure."
* ---> Is this what studies show, or is the social structure not well-studied, or has little research been done, or is their social structure hard to study since they're pelagic whales?  Maybe flesh this comment out just a bit, if posssible.
**Added a bit of content to hopefully clarify this.
***Yes, fine within the limits of the research.
</BR>
* "The Sei Whale is among the fastest of all cetaceans, and can reach speeds of up to 50 kilometres per hour (31 mi/hr, 27 knots) over short distances."
* --->"The Sei Whale is notable for its speed being among the fastest of all cetaceans,"  and 
* "Although it it notable for its speed, the whale is not a remarkable diver, diving to relatively shallow depths for between five to fifteen minutes."
* --->"However, it is not a remarkable diver, diving only' to relatively shallow depths for between five to fifteen minutes."
</BR>
* "The whale swims near the surface for a few minutes, with blows occurring at intervals of about 40 to 60 seconds followed by a "deep dive"."
* --->This comment is confusing.  Where did this "deep dive" come from all of a sudden?  Does it sometimes dive deep, though usually shallow?
** Cleared this section up and removed a redundant sentence I introduced when I was addressing an earlier FAC concern.
</BR>
* "Unlike the Fin Whale, the Sei Whale tends not to roll high out of the water as it dives."
* --->When I think of whales rolling, especially great whales, I think of them rolling on their side.  Do you mean it tends not to "rise high out of the water when it initiates a dive"?
** Yes.  Changed.
</BR>
* "The whale almost never extends its flukes above the surface, and it rarely breaches."
* --->"rarely breaches, or leaps high out of the water." just, again, explain breach so the article is self-contained for the general reader.
**Done.
</BR>
KP Botany 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Physical description and behaviour 

message: * "Mating occurs in temperate, low-latitude seas during the winter..."
* --->How low latitude?  This term is often used to mean tropical, but I suspect you mean subtropical?
</BR>
* --->Could you elaborate on the different models of fetal growth, explain briefly why the different gestation periods?
</BR>
KP Botany 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Life History 

message: * "Relatively little is known about the specific calls made by the whale, but in 2003,"
* --->Made by whales in general or this Sei Whale?  If the latter, "made by this whale."
</BR>
* "Most calls lasted about one half of a second in length,"
* --->Just "one half of a second" as in SI units, time and length have specific units, and second is the unit attached to duration of time.
</BR>
* "Many of the calls consisted of multiple parts with a change in frequency between the parts, which is a distinguishing feature of the Sei Whale's call when comparing it to other whales."
* --->I'm not sure what distinguishes it, that other whale calls don't have a change in frequency between parts or that it consists of multiple parts?  This may be a reading disorder on my part, though!
KP Botany 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocalizations 

message: The range map doesn't really match the text: "rarely found in tropical waters" and avoiding semi-enclosed areas. By the way, great work has been done on this article.  Kla'quot 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this sentiment entirely, excellent article.  KP Botany 18:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The range map that was on the article was inaccurate.  I've replaced it with one from a NOAA publication.  Ideally, the instructions for taxobox range maps specify that the range map should be based upon :Image:BlankMap-World-noborders.png, but I'm no artist, so if anybody wants to step up and convert the range map, be my guest. Neil916 (Talk) 06:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a map based on the one you put up there and replaced the old :Image:Cetacea range map Sei Whale.PNG with it. Chris_huhtalk 13:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Chris, really clear and straight-forward.  KP Botany 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range map 

message: * Sei Whales are found worldwide in a band stretching from Antarctica in the south to as far north as Iceland, although it is only rarely found in tropical waters.
* ---> But the introduction says they tend to avoid polar waters.  This is important, as it limits this whale's range from high-latitude feeding grounds, so consistency within refines this introductory comment and makes the article of value to higher level readers (readers with some background, as opposed to only laymen).
</BR>
* "In the North Atlantic, the range of the Sei Whale extends from southern Europe or northwestern Africa to Norway in the east, and from the southern United States to West Greenland in the west."
* ---> Maybe "to Norway in the eastern North Atlantic" and "To Greenland in the western."  Also, is Iceland further north than Norway?
</BR>
* "Throughout its range, the whale tends to avoid semi-enclosed bodies of water such as the Gulf of Mexico,"
* ---> Was the Gulf of Mexico internally linked above?  If not, add an internal link here.
</BR>
* "total population of Sei Whales in the North Pacific is found east of longitude 180°W,"
* ---> Would "is found east of the International Date Line" sound better?
</BR>
* "Two whales tagged off California were later captured off Washington and British Columbia, revealing a possible link between these areas,"
* ---> Off California implies coastal, though.  If so, remark as this would be an unusual tagging of a Sei Whale.  Or else "tagged in deep waters off California."  And "later recaptured off Washington."
</BR>
* "In general, the Sei Whale migrates annually from cool and subpolar waters in summer"
* ---> Is this because of the richer feeding grounds in cool and subpolar waters in the summer?
</BR>
* "West Africa and follows the continential slope northward in spring.
* ---> Link internally.
</BR>
* "general trends in the migration pattern of the Sei Whale,"
* ---> "in the migration patterns of the Sei Whale"
</BR>
* "and it is not easy to predict exactly where groups will appear from one year to the next."
* ---> "and scientists cannot readily predict exactly"
</BR>
* "A particular location may one year see an influx of many whales only for them not to return for several years afterwards."
* ---> "and none for several years afterwards."
</BR>
* "off the Irminger Current off West Greenland"
* ---> Off or in the Irminger Current, and if off, how about "south of the Irminger Current," and does the Irminger Current actually flow off of West Greenland, or is that part of the North Atlantic Current named something else? I thought the Irminger was a bit west.
</BR>
KP Botany 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Habitat and migration 

message: * "and later because of their comparatively small yield of oil and meat"
* ---> Smaller compared to what?  Just compared to the larger rorquals?  
</BR>
* "the Sei Whale was initially not generally hunted while sufficient stocks of Right Whales,"
* ---> I think you mean not specifically targetted or sought, "not methodically hunted," maybe.
</BR>
KP Botany 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Whaling 

message: * "They were hunted in large numbers off the coast of Norway and Scotland beginning in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries"
* ---> Doesn't make sense, maybe you mean "late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."
</BR>
* "and in 1885 alone, more than 700 Sei Whales were killed off Finnmark, Norway."
* ---> Is this a record year?  Make it its own statement.  Somehow it's just a number out of context.
</BR>
* "Sei Whale meat was a popular food "
* ---> "became a popular food"  When, in the late 19th century?  As soon as the hunt turned to Seis?
</BR>
* "with the demand for high-quality meat taking precedence over that for whale oil"
* ---> This implies whale oil is still used today, this should be explicitly stated, and what it is used for.
</BR>
* "Small numbers of Sei Whales were taken off Spain, Portugal, and in the Strait of Gibraltar beginning in the 1920s.[45] In North America, a total of 825 Sei Whales were taken off the Nova Scotian shelf by whalers operating out of Blandford, Nova Scotia between 1966 and 1972,[38] and small numbers of Sei Whales were taken by Norwegian and Danish whalers off West Greenland from the 1920s to the 1950s."
* ---->  Or maybe, "Sei whales were taken in small numbers off the Iberian Peninsula beginning in the 1920s, off Nova Scotia in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and off West Greenland by Norweigan and Danish whalers from the 1920s to 1950s."  Were the Iberian ones Portuguese whalers, include nationality if possible?  The Strait of Gibraltar is an inland waterway, also, the type avoided by Sei Whales according to the article--any comments in the literature about finding them there that will help with consistency?
</BR>
* ---> Any size trends in the catch, number of whales or size of whales that can be included?
KP Botany 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neil916 (Talk) 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC (Whaling) North Atlantic 

message: * "At shore stations in Japan and Korea, 300–600 Sei Whales were taken each year by whalers between 1911 and 1955."
* "Between 1957 and 1971, California shore whalers captured 386 whales."
* ---> I think that "shore stations" refers to the processing centers set up in the late 19th century starting in Norway, then elsewhere.  So technically, it seesm, in the first instance, you're saying the whales were "taken at shore stations," when, in fact they were only processed there?  In second instance, it should say, if this is the case, as these are pelagic animals, not coastal, "California shore whalers processed 386 whales."
</BR>
* "by Canadians in British Columbia"
* ---> "by Canadians in waters off British Columbia" Or are they all harvested in the ocean off Vancouver Island?
</BR>
* ---> In the first sentence of the first paragraph your time frames overlap, this, to me, makes it hard to see the big picture.
</BR>
* ---> Can you put the last sentence of each paragraph together and make it the single last sentence of the first paragraph? "In 1971, after a decade of high Sei Whale catch numbers, the species became scarce in Japanese waters." * "Commercial whaling for Sei Whales ended in the western North Pacific in 1975, and in the eastern North Pacific in 1971."
KP Botany 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about the shore stations and British Columbia waters, and I have clarified the text.  As far as the overlapping time frames, I decided that less information would be easier to comprehend, and summarized the second source as simply "the majority were taken after 1947".  I've partially implemented your suggestion about the dates of the end of whaling; the first paragraph deals with the eastern pacific and the second with the western pacific, so I just split the end dates into the appropriate paragraphs.  Neil916 (Talk) 06:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC (Whaling) North Pacific 

message: * ---> Should "hemisphere" be capitalized, I think not, but others may know better.
* ---> Who was whaling, what countries, in the southern hemisphere?  None are mentioned.
</BR>
KP Botany 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, southern hemisphere should not be capitalized.  I don't have a list of the nations that hunted in the southern hemisphere, but a few minutes on Google suggests to me that it's not a short one.  Neil916 (Talk) 06:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC (Whaling) Southern Hemisphere 

message: * "the kill was limited only by whalers' abilities to find the whales"
* ---> "Prior to catch quotas, whalers were limited only by their ability to locate the whales." 
</BR>
* "With the moratorium on commercial whaling taking effect in the Northern Hemisphere in 1986, all elegal whaling for Sei Whales stopped."
* ---> Is this because only Norway and Japan were killing Sei Whales at the time, and they were only taking them in the northern hemisphere?  This needs to be states explicitly, imo.
</BR>
* ---> Are their studies that show what kind of pressure the species was under at the time the moratorium was declared, or when the catch quotas were first set in 1970?  And what kind of trends led to the moratorium?
</BR>
* "There is no direct evidence of illegal whaling in the North Pacific, although the acknowledged misreporting of whaling date by the Soviet Union means that catch data are not entirely reliable."
* ---> Is it just Soviet Union, or SU and modern Russia?  If SU, then past tense. And is their whaling done only in the North Pacific?  Did they catch Sei Whales in the North Pacific?  Also, I think the Koreans were caught on film taking whales in the North Pacific in violation of the ban.  I'm not sure this generalist statement is necessary, overall, for the article, and I think you're missing a few points from it, namely the Koreans and possible direct evidence.  I may be mistaken.  Is there illegal whaling in the southern hemisphere?  And if so, by whom, and comments about the general trend for large illegal fisheries in the southern versus northern hemisphere.
</BR>
* ---> Last paragraph, reverse last two sentences as you discuss northern first, then southern, elsewhere. 
</BR>
KP Botany 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made the copyedit to the ability to locate the whales sentence.  All legal whaling stopped in 1986 because the IWC voted in 1982 to halt all global commercial whaling.  I tried to clarify this, but I'm not sure where your confusion about Japan and Norway came in.  I've discussed population statistics more in the "population estimates" section, although not specifically limited to the period of time when the moratorium took effect.  I left it with a general statement that the moratorium was a result of increasing evidence that several whale species were being threatened with extinction.   As far as the Soviet Union, it was just the Soviets, not modern russia.  I don't think that past tense is appropriate, since the data still exists, and is still unreliable.  (ARE still unreliable-- I never get used to recognizing that the word "data" is plural).  The documents detailing misreported Soviet hunting detailed illegal hunting in the waters of New Zealand and the Antarctic, but also in the northwestern part of the Indian Ocean, and in the Southwest Atlantic.  Sei Whales were not explicitly named.  I have also seen reports of illegal Korean whaling, but nothing relating to Sei Whales.  I haven't seen anything about illegal whaling in the southern hemisphere.  The only thing I could find was a very vague reference to Japan blocking the attempted import of Sei Whale meat from Russia in 1992, I believe, but the reference is a bit iffy for inclusion here.  Reversed the sentences in the last paragraph. Neil916 (Talk) 07:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC International Protection 

message: Who funds the Japanese research, the government or the whaling industry?  Where do they publich, in any international journals, or in exclusively Japanese journals?  Greenpeace may have this information.   Name specific envirornmental campaigns that dispute the need for research and the value of the Japanese and Norweigan research or the caliber.
</BR>
KP Botany 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Japanese research is conducted by a private, non-profit entity, the ICR, although I have seen references (perhaps incorrect) to the ICR as the Government of Japan.  The ICR's website (www.icrwhale.org) spells it out as "The Institute of Cetacean Research (I.C.R.), a unique organization in Japan specializing in the biological and social sciences related to whales, came into being in October 1987. It is a nonprofit research organization whose legal status is authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Government of Japan, as a foundational judicial person."  As I understand it, results of the research are presented to the scientific committee of the IWC.  I have information about WWF opposing the research based upon a paper presented to the IWC but don't have any other names.  Neil916 (Talk) 08:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Post-protection whaling 

message: * ---> I think this section could be rewritten as a whole.  It doesn't flow as well as the rest of the article, imo.
</BR>
* "In the North Atlantic, a 1991 study that reviewed the history of catches and catch per unit effort (CPUE) data produced a population estimate of 4,000."
* ---> Is this North Atlantic population estimate only?  "The North Atlantic population is estimated at 4000 from a 1991 study that reviewed catch and catch per unit effort data (CPUE)."  Maybe include what years of catch and/or CPUE data.  And an explanation about what CPUE is, briefly, not the formula, and background, if you're going go to include this data, as it's a rather obscure term. Also the population estimate has a unit attached to it, 4000 whales, or 4000 Sei Whales.
</BR>
* "This low-precision estimate is not considered a true scientific index of abundance."
* ---> Why is it a "low-precision estimate?"  You don't discuss precision at all.
</BR>
* "Sei Whales were said to have been scarce in the 1960's and early 1970's off northern Norway, where plentiful numbers were taken at the end of the nineteenth century through the Second World War."
* ---> "1960s and early 1970s.
</BR>
* "A study in 1977 produced a population estimate for the Pacific Ocean of 9,110, based upon the history of catches and CPUE data."
* ---> "based upon catch and CPUE data."
</BR>
* "This figure is disputed as outdated by Japanese whaling interests, who in 2002 claimed that the population of Sei Whales in the western North Pacific was over 28,000 whales,"
* ---> "which in 2002 claimed"  Or is it "that?"  Not "who," though.
</BR>
* that the population of Sei Whales in the western North Pacific was over 28,000 whales, but this figure has not been accepted by the scientific community."
* ---> "a figure not accepted by the scientific community."
</BR> 
* "In California waters, there was only one confirmed and five possible sightings from 1991, 1992, and 1993 aerial and ship surveys, and there were no confirmed sightings off Oregon and Washington aerial surveys.
* ---> "from 1991 to 1993 aerial and ship surveys" and "and there were no confirmed sightings off Oregon and Washington."
</BR>
* "By the end of the period of exploitation (1974), there numbers had been reduced to between 7,260 and 12,620."
* ---> "the number of Sei Whales in the northern hemisphere had been reduced to between 7,260 and 12,620 whales."
</BR>
KP Botany 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made changes, although I didn't rewrite the entire section.  See what you think of it now.  Neil916 (Talk) 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it's rather hard to follow, for example, the first paragraph does not tie the following information together at the end or into the opening sentence (or just part of the opening sentence, maybe adding how that population estimate is divided among oceans might help).  
#"The current global population of the Sei Whale is estimated at only 54,000, about one fifth of the population before the era of commercial whaling.[6]"  Who made this population estimate, stated explicitly might relieve some of the confusion of the following unrelated statements.
#"A 1991 study in the North Atlantic produced a total population in that area of only 4,000.[59] This study used a common method of measurement called "catch per unit effort" (CPUE), which attempts to draw conclusions about abundance based upon the amount of time and effort that is required to locate the species in question."  I think it is based upon the time and effort that is required to catch the species, not locate it, and the total catch.
#"This method is criticised in the scientific community and is not considered a true scientific index of abundance.[60]"  Why is the method criticized in the scientific community?  Because it's economically driven?
#This list of unrelated sentences about the North Atlantic stocks must somehow be tied into the initial sentence, or they should be deleted, or the initial sentence changed to introduce this list of various esitmates from different places.
#"A study in 1977 produced a population estimate for the Pacific Ocean of 9,110, based upon the catch and CPUE data.[49]"  Whose study?  Sounds like a fisheries study.
#"This figure is disputed as outdated by Japanese whaling interests, which in 2002 claimed that the population of Sei Whales in the western North Pacific was over 28,000 whales,[57] a figure not accepted by the scientific community.[8]"  This sounds awkward to me.  "Japanese whaling interests dispute this figure, claiming in 2002 that the population of Sei Whales in the western North Pacific was over 28,000 whales[57], a figure not accepted by the international scientific community."
#"Prior to commercial whaling activities, there were an estimated 42,000 Sei Whales in the North Pacific.[49] By the end of the period of exploitation (1974), the numbers of Sei Whales in the North Pacific had been reduced to between 7,260 and 12,620 whales.[49]"  I'd like to see this paragraph follow the form of the first, or the first follow the form of this paragraph.  I think the first of these two sentences could open this paragraph, and probably the first paragraph could conclude with a similar sentence of the best international scientific consensus on the total Sei Whale population of the Atlantic.
#If you do what is suggested just above, then this paragraph will have a similar structure, also.  "In the Southern Hemisphere, Sei Whale abundance estimates range between 9,800 and 12,000 whales, based upon the history of catches and CPUE in the southern oceans."  Add the source of the data.
KP Botany 19:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population estimates 

message: * ---> Can you include closing remarks about the future of the whale from studies?  Anything interesting?  Otherwise fine.  
</BR>
KP Botany 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Wrap up 

message: I believe the adjective, which relates to the noun, here adds nothing to the heading. The word relates to the description of the animal. At the moment across various pages we have Physical description,  Description, Characteristics, Physical Characteristics, Appearance and Identification for a section, generally below the lead, where a description of the animal, plant or fungus is given. I settled on Description (though a few bird pages have Identification) as it was the most succinct and apt descriptor of what the section actually does. Needless to say conformity is a good thing (I do it alot and someone has take the time with the other whale articles to streamline them alot)
If you remove the adjective it makes no difference to the meaning of the section. Can you show me how you feel the lack of the adjective may be ambiguous? If you can make a case for it I'll happily embark on changing loads of others :) cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical description vs Description

message: The range map doesn't accurately match the one in source number 2 (), and it is unsourced - quite bad for a FA and article of the day. Could anyone fix the map?
Rain74 (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I don't understand why people are reverting the facts about Sei whale's sexual escapades. I suggest you do your research before making such callous reverts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.222.45 (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Issues

message: The statement at the end of the Vocalizations section "This is louder than a jet engine and a gun blast." is incorrect and I am surprised that an article with such a basic error is so highly ranked.  It is not trivial to compare sound levels in water to those in the ocean and you cannot just compare the dB values (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_acoustics#Comparison_with_airborne_sound_levels).  Depending on how you make the comparison you have to subtract between 26 and 60 dB from the air sound levels to make them equivalent to those in water.  The Sei whale vocalization is not as loud as a jet engine or gun blast.  This sentence should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.236.95.164 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  When this article was promoted to featured article, it had a more accurate comparison with a footnote leading to a detailed discussion of comparing sounds in air to sounds in water.  I have reverted to that version.  Neil916 (Talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocalizations

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bowhead Whale which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: There is a article in the whakatane beacon about a sei whale being washed up on whale island witch is very horrible to here a bout and the size was 15 metres long and has recorded to be one of whakatanes largest whales recorded.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.102.35 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 METRE LONG SEI WHALE FOUND DEAD 

message: I know they are the third longest rorqual (albeit by only a few feet), but are they the third largest? Cetacean Societies (Mann et al. 2000) gives the median weight of an adult female sei as 41,000 lbs, whereas the humpback is stated as 77,000 lbs. The Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico (Wursig et al. 2000) says seis range between c. 28,000-34,000 lbs (max. probably about 63,000 lbs) and humpbacks between c. 68,000-90,000 lbs. Only Guide to the Marine Mammals of the World (Reeves et al. 2002) specifically says seis grow larger (100,000 compared to 90,000 lbs) than humpbacks, but it doesn’t cite a source. Humpbacks tended to yield more oil, being higher up on the blue whale unit scale than seis (1:2.5 compared to 1:6, although a British chemist revealed it is closer to 1:2.5 to 1:3.8). But perhaps oil yield isn't the best way to approximate size? I guess you could also argue whether humpbacks are true rorquals or not, being outside the Balaenopterid genus. Skimming through a few Wikipedia articles, it appears they are included as rorquals though, so this appears worthy of debate.  
Also, the source cited (Reeves et al. 1998, p. 11) states seis only reach a maximum of 28,000 kg (28 mt; c. 60,000 lbs). Where did the figure of 45 tonnes come from? That seems quite large for such a slender species.  OldBabyBlue (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sei whale third largest rorqual? 

message: Since it seems to be popular nowadays to go through articles and change the spellings from UK to US English and vice versa, I'll save everybody the hassle.  The very first revision of this article,  used UK English spelling.  Per WP:ENGVAR, this article should remain with that variant of English, even though it means so many of the words are spelled wrong (*grin*).    I hope that saves a whole bunch of people a whole bunch of time.   Neil916 (Talk) 16:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK vs US English spelling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sei whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611112003/http://www.cms.int/documents/appendix/Appendices_COP9_E.pdf to http://www.cms.int/documents/appendix/Appendices_COP9_E.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sei whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825094925/http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/publications/index.cfm?uNewsID=13793 to http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/publications/index.cfm?uNewsID=13793
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5hcFfBPZK?url=https://secure2.nni.com/whalecenter/pdfs/Sei_whales_FishBull92.pdf to https://secure2.nni.com/whalecenter/pdfs/Sei_whales_FishBull92.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/arctic/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=8221
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061028211938/http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/SEI.pdf to http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/SEI.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209053202/http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/NYTimes.pdf to http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/NYTimes.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sei whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/document/reykjavik/pdf/09tamura.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413175552/http://www.panoramio.com/photo/71888436 to http://www.panoramio.com/photo/71888436
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is considerable uncited text and clean-up needed on this article, along with Fin whale for the current FA criteria. 2001:4455:364:A800:545D:5A2E:3020:5FAC (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]]