Talk:Pygmy right whale

message: 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)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: Can somebody confirm the "Least Concern" status of the Pygmy Right?
Animal Diversity Web claims
"The pygmy right whale is so rare and unstudied, we don't even know how rare it is. There is no accurate count of pygmy right whales."
from: 
-r —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.115.68.21 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just updated it to the latest IUCN assessment of Data Deficient. I think the last time it was assessed in 1996 it was Least Concern. Chris_huhtalk 10:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status 

message: In this part...
:"The species lives in the Southern Hemisphere and is believed to be circumpolar, living in a band from about 30°S to 50°S in areas with :surface water temperature between 5 and 20 degrees Celsius (21 and 68 degree Fahrenheit)"
...the temperature conversions are wrong.  5° C = 41° F.  I bet the Celsius is the right temperature (21 degrees F = -6 degrees C), but since I don't know the source of the information, I'm going to leave it for someone who can confirm it. 128.163.7.129 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you're right, so I've fixed the Fahrenheit, and added a citation tag, since the source is unclear.Anaxial (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperatures 

message: Cabrera et al (2005) says a speciman of pygmy right reportedly caught off Tierra del Fuego was actually a minke whale. Was there another pygmy right that stranded there (sources are vague)? Or was the above speciman the only example of this species there? It would change the range of the species several degrees of latitude if it had been the only speciman. Guess I'll have to look into more. OldBabyBlue (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They also mention a speciman from a private collection in Tierra del Fuego, on the Argentine side, but don't say where exactly it came from (presumably it stranded there?). OldBabyBlue (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tierra del Fuego  

message: The population distribution section states the species is "circumpolar" and lives in a band between 30 and 55 degrees South latitude. As the Antarctic Circle is at approx 66 degrees, the 30 to 55 range would be entirely north of the circle. Thus, I can't see how the Pygmy Right's range could be described as circumpolar. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the referenced source to check it out, so I didn't change the text of the article.  I did tag the wikilink to circumpolar as needing disambiguation. That's actually what led me here in the first place and, as none of the links on that disambiguation page appear to fit here, and since it doesn't actually seem to fit the definition of circumpolar, I suspect we just need a rewording. --LarryJeff (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted you. Take a look at the range map in the article. That shows the range accurately. Also, the source is the IUCN redlist, and it is 100% online and free. If you click the link in the reference list, then on the map at the redlist, you'll see if matches the range map in the article. Then grab a map or a globe that shows latitude lines and you'll see the range is indeed in the 30-55 degree range, and that it circles the pole. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Ah... I see your issue now.... the dab page doesn't include the definition of circumpolar that is implied here. Subantarctic seems to fit best, eh? Note the articles doesn't claim fully circumpolar, but that it may be circumpolar. Shall we dab this link to subantarctic? (I was thinking you had a problem with the range itself... but the ranged definitely "circles the pole".) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I believe that's the best possible solution for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumpolar? 

message: There's a claim in the article now that this should be in Cetotheriidae; see: . Should we update the taxobox? Discuss. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears someone changed it without discussion. I would wait for other papers to support it, and perhaps for it to regularly appear in secondary sources (which might be a little too long to wait). SHFW70 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I didn't do the changing, but I'm so excited! NERDGASM! The cetotheres LIVE!!! *no shame*24.130.181.192 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a new paper (below) that challenges the assignment to Cetotheriidae.  Most recent does not equal most right, but I think there is often too much of a rush to change classifications on Wikipedia whenever a new phylogeny is published, without giving adequate discussion. A good article would not make arbitrary classifications based on the phylogeny du jour, but rather adequately discuss the controversy and conflicting evidence, per WP:DUE --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cetotheriidae 

message: * http://www.katu.com/news/va?vaid=0dd63244343f284ed7d64855c4633803
--Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already covered with the citations to the actual research paper.--Kevmin § 19:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pygmy right 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) 22:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified