Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Procellariidae/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC) [1].

Procellariidae

edit
Notified: Sabine's Sunbird, Vital articles, WikiProject Birds, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, 2021-01-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are sentences and whole sections that do not have citations. I tagged some of these sections with cn tags in January, but these went unaddressed. There are also citations to books that do not contain page numbers. Z1720 (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the lack of citations isn't the major problem with this article - I could easily add some citations. The article includes a large section "Taxonomy and evolution" which is out of date. In addition, because of changes in the taxonomy since the article was written, the diving petrels aren't mentioned - or weren't - they were formerly placed in their own family, Pelecanoididae, but were found by genetic studies to be embedded in Procellariidae.
Although the identity and the relationship between the families in the order Procellariiformes is now firmly established, the branching topology of the genera in Procellariidae has been only partly known.
A preprint was uploaded to the BioRxiv server in July 2021 that contains what appears to be a robust molecular phylogenetic study of the procellariiforms (see here). I've placed a cladogram on the talk page that is based on this study. When the preprint is published in a refereed journal, I'll move the cladogram into the wiki article.
- Aa77zz (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz I see you made some edits recently. Is this star salvageable, or should we Move to FARC? I am wondering if Jimfbleak has an opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:, I'm a fairly minor editor to this article, and I don't have the access to resources that Aa77zz has. He is one of the two major editors and currently working on it, so I'm content to leave it to his judgement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aa77zz: I see no edits since 4 January; how is this coming along? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I'll work on the article over the next few days. -Aa77zz (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I see that work is ongoing. @Aa77zz: please ping me here when the article is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: work continued on Jan. 30 and Feb. 8 Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and Z1720: I've now completely revamped the Taxonomy section, included references for the uncited text and added missing page numbers. I've also made a few updates to the text. For the relationships between the genera within the family, I've incorporated the results reported in the preprint mentioned above. I've exchanged emails with the first author and learned that she hopes that the article will be published online in April. I'll update the reference when this happens. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aa77zz: Besides the reference that will be updated in April, is the article ready for editors to review, or are there additional updates/improvements that need to happen first? Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - please review. It is a "big" subject - with many sources. Unfortunately I don't own any of the books - and so had to go to the library today to check page numbers etc. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decipher why, considering there is a Carbonerasa and a Carbonerasb, there is also this:

8. Carboneras, C. (1992). del Hoyo, J.; Elliott, A.; Sargatal, J. (eds.). Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 1: Ostrich to Ducks. Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Edicions. pp. 198–278. ISBN 84-87334-10-5.
Remove cite - there were 3 others for the same information. -Aa77zz (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are considerable duplicate links; you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to view them. Some reduction is needed, but what to keep and what to delink is a judgement call. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of the duplicated links. This is tricky - I'm surely not the only person who doesn't read a large article continuously from top to bottom (and wlinks are not intrusive) - Aa77zz (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"There are 99 species of procellariid in 16 genera.[4] For a complete list, and notes on different taxonomies, see List of Procellariidae."
Wikipedia content is mirrored on other sites, where this kind of construct doesn't work. I suggest just putting a hatnote at the top of the section with a See also link to the List, and removing the text beginning with "For a complete ... "
Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now created a "See also" section for the list and moved the sentence "There are 99 species ...". - Aa77zz (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Z1720

Please comment below the bullet point if the point is resolved or if you have any questions about it. I am not an expert in writing articles on species, so please excuse my ignorance.

  • "They range in size from the giant petrels, which are almost as large as the albatrosses, to the diving petrels that are similar in size to the little auks or dovekies in the family Alcidae." As a lay person, I have no context on how large or small these other species are. Can the lede include measurements?
I've added wingspan measurements to the lede. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT language needs to be added to all images per MOS:ALT
ALT text now added to all images. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " concentrations of 1 pair per square metre in three colonies of more than 1 million pairs," per MOS:NUMERAL unless there is a specific reason the number 1 is used instead, it should be the word one.
Done (by SandyGeorgia) - Aa77zz (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most procellariid colonies are located on islands that have historically been free of mammals; for this reason some species cannot help but be colonial as they are limited to a few locations to breed." -> "Most procellariid colonies are located on islands that have historically been free of mammals and become colonial as they are limited to a few locations to breed." Would this suggested change modify the meaning of this sentence?
  • "found that of nine out of 61 male chicks that returned to breed at their natal colony actually bred in the burrow they were raised in." Delete "of" before the word "nine"?
Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This tendency towards using the same site from year to year is matched by strong mate fidelity, with birds breeding with the same partner for many years; in fact it is suggested that the two are linked,[70] site fidelity being a means by which partnered birds could meet at the beginning of the breeding season." -> "This tendency towards using the same site from year to year is matched by strong mate fidelity, with birds breeding with the same partner for many years; it is suggested that the two are linked,[70] with site fidelity acting as a means in which partnered birds could meet at the beginning of the breeding season." Please check the modified phrasing to ensure it doesn't change the meaning. Also, the person/group that suggested that the two are linked should be stated in the article.
Reworded based on your suggestion. I've moved the cite to the end of the sentence. The cited article contains a discussion of the evidence for linking the two. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some species breed seasonally, to avoid competition with other species for burrows," remove the first comma
Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "breed seasonally for reasons unknown." -> "breed seasonally for unknown reasons"?
Done. - Aa77zz (talk)
  • "and even the stage of incubation." delete even
Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with fledging taking place at around 2 months after hatching for the smaller species and 4 months for the largest species." two months and four months, per MOS:NMERAL?
Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chicks put on weight quickly and some can outweigh their parents; although, they will slim down before they leave the nest." semi-colon should be replaced with a comma, and the comma after although should be removed
Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Life expectancy of Procellariidae is between 15 and 20 years; although, the oldest recorded member was a northern fulmar that was over 50 years." Delete although
Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More recently procellariids have been hunted for food by Europeans," comma after recently
Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since the arrival of man," -> since the arrival of humans?
Done. - Aa77zz (talk)
  • "such as feral cats, rats, mongooses and even mice" delete even
Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conservationists are working with governments and fisheries in order to prevent further declines" Delete "in order"
Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the references, similar media types should be references similarily. If the article lists books in a separate sources area, then all the books used as sources should be listed there. Otherwise, the sources should all be listed in references and the sources area removed.
The Sources section only contains those books to which the article cites several different pages. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think my concerns have been addressed, so this article is ready to keep, pending a review from an editor who frequents this topic area. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Morphology and flight section, the long caption on the second image contributes to the SANDWICH problem. The second sentence of that caption is not included in the article (or cited). The caption could be shortened by moving that sentence to the text, and citing it; that should also resolve the sandwich issue.

I've moved some text from the caption into the article and added a cite. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak might you have a look now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I'll take a look, but might be a few days before I can fit it in due to RL demands Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pestering Jimfbleak again :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I've been holding off a bit because Aa77zz has been doing the heavy lifting on this. I've had another look recently, and made a couple of trivial edits, but there's nothing significant I can see, although I'm no expert on this family. Happy to Keep now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Procellariidae/archive1&oldid=1076794659"