Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Beluga whale" in English language version.
{{cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (help){{cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (help){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Includes struck and lost.{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (help){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) This table uses their "high" estimate, since they say, page 23: "The high take scenario is considered the better of the two because it accounts for times when takes are known to have occurred but are not documented. Additionally, we did not account for beluga whales that are struck and lost because these data are not available, so the high take option may even be an underestimate."{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Includes struck and lost.{{cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (help){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) This table uses their "high" estimate, since they say, page 23: "The high take scenario is considered the better of the two because it accounts for times when takes are known to have occurred but are not documented. Additionally, we did not account for beluga whales that are struck and lost because these data are not available, so the high take option may even be an underestimate."{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Includes struck and lost.{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)