Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ivory-billed Woodpecker/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ivory-billed Woodpecker[edit]

This article recently passed GA. This peer review request is now posted, as a logical next step towards hopefully attaining FA status. All & any comments appreciated SP-KP 07:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
OK, fixed. SP-KP 16:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
Fixed too - might be sensible for someone else to check this though SP-KP 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite accurate, the taxobox has a painting - and the chances of us finding an Ivorybill photo are not high. What about photos of habitat, Tanner, etc? SP-KP 16:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some image sources include the commons page on the species (which has some paintings) [1], and the Cashe River NWR Site [2] where the species was rediscovered (images of habitat and of the hoopla that surrounded rediscovery). Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[3]
Done SP-KP 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.

[4]

  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[5]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
Does this refer to "Other facts"? If so, why don't we call it "Ivory-billed Woodpecker in popular culture"? SP-KP 16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done already? SP-KP 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[7]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [8]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few notes (more soon, but today has been super busy).
  • The intro is lopsided, almost all of it is about the rediscovery.
  • The biology section is unreferenced. It is also worth noting strongly that much of the biology of this species is conjecture or extrapolation from a few scattered observations. The species was studied by very few people before it vanished.
  • Almost no mention is made of the Cuban population - which lasted into the eighties if I recall. The Cuban Ivory-bill was a separate subspecies.
  • Those big quote sections with the blue quote marks, which were added after the GA status was approved, are really distracting. They generally get pinged on during a FA canidacy. I'd at least remove the blue quotes. Italics may work and large quotes are sometimes suitable for wikisource. Rlevse 09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there are way too much quotes inside the "possible rediscovery" section
  • "Breeding biology" is only one paragraph. It should probably be expanded in a "behavior" section, or somethig similar.
  • A distribution map, if relevant would be an asset.
  • Looks to me like many level 2 headers should be combined under a larger "history" section.

Circeus 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ See footnote
  5. ^ See footnote
  6. ^ See footnote
  7. ^ See footnote
  8. ^ See footnote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ivory-billed_Woodpecker/archive1&oldid=1138562314"