Talk:Snowy albatross/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Wolverine XI ^{(den • 🐾)} 09:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@AryKun: You do know you still have to review this, right? Wolverine XI ^{(den • 🐾)} 14:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll take me a couple of days. It's been 2 days since I created the page. AryKun (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• On first glance, I'm inclined to quick-fail this over concerns about the sourcing, comprehensiveness, and structure.
• It uses a lot of poor-quality or outdated refs. I usually would be okay with somewhat older references, but for a confusing complex that's been split recently, I definitely would prefer more recent sources. Many are too old to be of much functional use, it's been too long and too much research has occurred in the 30–40 years since they were published.
• Additionally, many older sources are used despite newer sources being present; see the 2008 BirdLife assessment being cited instead of the more recent and relevant 2018 one. So many sources are very poor-quality: the 1911 EB (!), a 1983 Guinness Book, a 2008 taxonomy from some project I've never heard of instead of the three annually updated avian checklists, a NZ government bird cam, and local newspapers.
• The comprehensiveness is also a concern; taxonomy is very lacking, distribution and habitat seems barebones, description lacks the appearance of juveniles, feeding is very short (I saw almost 10 studies on its diet on Scholar), parasites and predators are not mentioned (I saw some studies on Scholar), and conservation is too short considering even the IUCN Red List text summary covers more points than it.
• The structure's also poor. The population and trends table makes no sense; it's single year estimates from random locations over 15 years ago and has nothing to do with distribution. The Description section focuses 2 paragraphs on largest albatross on xx island and only one para on the actual appearance of the species. Taxonomy doesn't cover any of its systematic history or taxonomic relationships to other albatrosses.
• The selection of images is somewhat random; images are meant to complement the text and here they feel like they're just randomly stuck in.
• "10 December and 5 January" I was skimming through and saw this, which is immediately contradicted by BOW. I checked a couple more claims in the article afterwards and found many errors, which might be because of how old the references used are. Much of the article also doesn't seem to have been changed substantially since you started working on it, so I also can't AGF on the veracity of the claims.
• This article honestly requires a lot of work; I'll be quick failing it for now. AryKun (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed