Wikipedia:Peer review/U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program/archive1

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program[edit]

This article discusses an interesting, unusual, and controversial program of the U.S. Navy, which received some sensational (and probably wildly inaccurate) media coverage recently following Hurricane Katrina. As such, I think it would make an interesting feature article; so, let's see if it's up to standard! — Johantheghost 15:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great article - I'd support it --PopUpPirate 09:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a clear reference section added, it should include all the sources used to write the article- html links in the text should also be fully described in this section so that if the source website goes down or the page is moved- then there is still a record on Wikipedia of what the refernce was.--nixie 15:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, nixie. I was trying to figure out the best way to do the whole reference thing... anyway, I've had a go, and the page now has a real ref section. Comments? — Johantheghost 17:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. The capitalisation of animal names should be consistent, since were dealing with mammals a common name should be Bluenose Dolphin and a group of species lowercase is ok (I adjusted the lists so you an see what I'm talking about), you'll notice that many of the links to names in the article now go though a redirect due to capitalisation differences. Have you come across any information on how good the animals are at their jobs, I thought I read an article earlier in the year about how the gulf dolphins weren't doing well - I'd be an interesting addition if you can find the information. --nixie 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comments. I've fixed (I think) the capitalization, and I found a reference about the claimed effectiveness of their mine-clearance work — good idea, that. I couldn't find that negative story, though. (There was one dolphin that ran off, but it came back again.) Anyhow, I think the article pretty much rocks now — thanks to everyone who's been commenting and tweaking it recently — what do you think? — Johantheghost 11:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]