Talk:Polar bear/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Comments

I consider this to be on hold pending the one remaining image use issue. I have to learn how to tag it as such. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

12/31/10 Comments after first read

This is an excellent article. I did a first read, and my comments from it and my comments are just on the three tages that are already in there and the reason for them.

The first two tags are in the lead on:

For decades, unrestricted hunting raised international concern for the future of the species; populations have rebounded after controls and quotas began to take effect.

I think that saying simply "unrestricted" raised some concerns. One is that it is a far reaching statement (I.E. that there were absolutely NO restrictions) and it sounds like it might be more of a a brief assessment by the author rather than content. One suggestion would be to expand it a bit with more specific wording.

Resolved North8000 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The process of handling the second "citation needed" tag might lead to resolving the first. Also, "have rebounded" is a current tense statement, immediately following a sentence about 8 of the 19 groups being in decline. Has the appearance of somewhat conflicting with itself. One suggestion: Possibly just change the "have rebounded" to "rebounded"

Resolved North8000 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The third tag is in the Naming and etymology section on:

The Yupik also refer to the bear as nanuuk in Siberian Yupik.

That should get resolved one way or the other.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done LittleJerry (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Confirming, resolved. North8000 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer comments after review of image permissions

I reviewed all of the image permissions. There was only one where I don't think there is a valid basis listed which is the $2 Canadian stamp. Apparently an individual took a picture of the stamp, and as a use basis they said that they created it by themselves. I don't think that taking a picture of a printed work constitutes "creating" it for permission purposes. Two ideas that come to mind.....presumably there is something under Canadian which provides a use permission, another would be to remove the image. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To add, based on the request for input at WP:CWNB, I believe the image will either be under Crown Copyright or the copyright of the artist. I don't believe this derivative work is free use, so it will require a valid FUR (seems unlikely to meet WP:NFCC in this article) or it should be removed. Resolute 03:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I plan to remove the image, see if the change is stable. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved I removed it 1-2 days ago. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer comments after main read 1/2/11

What an excellent article! IMHO The few things I found don't all need to be changed to obtain GA status, but here they are:

• I think that the red link under "Population and Distribution" goes to the same article that is blue linked later in this article. Maybe just something like spelling or capitalization.

Fixed this link. Had slightly different wording than the article title. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• 5th Paragraph in "Hunting and diet" has some repetition

Done LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• If talk page poster is correct (that she died), update part on Debby which says that she is still alive

Done LittleJerry (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Clarify.. Article describes the Polar Bear as a straight carnivore. But then talks about the mother bear eating vegetation when emerging from den. I assume that this instance is too brief / one-time to affect carnivore classification.

• End of "US endangered species legislation" section. Clarify. Refers to a decision, but doesn't say what the decision was.

Done LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• from what I've seen, the "Notes" section is usually before the "References" section, as that how it flows for a cite (article to "notes" to "references" What do you think of swapping them?

Swapped these sections. Feel free to undo if you feel otherwise. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, what an excellent article! I'd be happy to help on these but thought I should get at least my part done in limited time this AM. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am passing the article to Good Article status

I am passing the article for Good Article status. I will handle the details today and leave an additional note here on those. It was a privilege to review such an excellent article, congratulations to all on having created it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

End of reviewer comments section

x

- - - - End of GA review page - - - -