Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fauna of Australia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fauna of Australia[edit]

The first original and comprehensive survey of a countries fanua on Wikipedia. The article has been though formal and several rounds of informal peer review by interested editors.--nixie 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Repaced one, found the author of one, and on point one- if you read the licence on those images you would see that commercial use is permited as long as the original source is credited- which puts in on par with Cc-by-sa-2.0 or the GFDL for freeness.--nixie 06:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed photos mentioned in point 1 anyway.--nixie 06:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording is a bit complicated, but the key terms seem to be "to download, print and otherwise reproduce the information for non-commercial purposes only" and "If it is indicated on a website that specific information may be used for commercial purposes". Without knowing the source website, it's not possible to check to see if the site's got an exception for commercial use, and in any case, it doesn't appear to allow derivative works. --Carnildo 19:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course. More great work by nixie.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks great on a cursory glance, but I need a little more time to go through this with a fine-tooth comb. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: amazing article Nixie! However, "The Australian Psittaciformes comprises a sixth of the world’s parrots..." what is a Psittaciformes? However, I really must say that I think you've done a superb job!!!!! If you could sort this small thing out, I give you an enthusiastic support! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Psittaciformes is the order of birds that includes parrots, I've reworked the sentence. --nixie 13:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great work, but with a few comments
    • The establishment and speciation of the present-day fauna... (under Fauna of Australia#Origins of Australian fauna, para 1) - I think that "evolution" would be a better word than speciation, since it encompasses change in general, while speciation is really just a split in a lineage.
    • giving rise to a diverse group of arid-specialised flora and fauna (same section, para 2) - I don't usually think of "flora" and "fauna" as countable objects (with the exception of a slightly different usage of the words in systematics) - why not just say "plants and animals", "organisms" or "species"?
    • Fauna of Australia#Monotremes and marsupials, paras 1,2 - I find the sentances here rather long, with too many semi-colons; might it not make for easier reading if you broke some of those sentances up?
    • Australian snakes come from seven families (Fauna of Australia#Amphibia and reptiles, para 5). Might "belong to" be better wording? Somehow "come from" just doesn't feel like the best choice of words. Also - snakes after lizards? Aren't snakes sexier than lizards? ;)
    • Invertebrates occupy all ecological niches (Fauna of Australia#Invertebrates, para after table) - I disagree with that statement; if that were true, then there would be no unoccupied niches for verts to fill. Or are you Aussies all invertbrates which have evolved to look like humans?!!! ;)
    • Introduced species that have and continute to cause significant environmental degradation (same para) - I don't like this sentance (a) shouldn't it be "that have caused and continue to cause", and (b) should it be "that" or "which"?
    • 3.7 m earthworm? Wow. (That isn't a suggested change, it's just amazement)
    Guettarda 13:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've covered all your points [1], thanks for the careful once over.--nixie 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ObjectComment:, a few points based on the lead and the first section.
The anon that struck out above oppose, was me. - Mgm|(talk) 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The word endemism needs a quick explanation or rewording.
  2. I don't think marsupial is a common word to non-native English speakers, maybe a quick explanation in the lead would help?
  3. Explain what a monotreme is.
  4. The lead mentions different animals getting extinct by hunting, introductions of enemies and general habitat destruction. Maybe you can include some examples?

I'll continue reading and reviewing the rest of it later. - Mgm|(talk) 15:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have addressed most of your objections [2], however I am not in favor of redundant definition of terms, endemism for example is explained in the context of the preceeding sentence, and is a wikilink.--nixie 03:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    favor? I thought favour was prevalent in Australia ;) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please use   between a number and its unit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got them all.--nixie 16:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing, please move the Gang Gang and koala images a bit lower, it currently squeezes the text in lower resolutions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Informative text and excellent pics. Tony 13:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support wow. Take care of MgM's objection though :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He said he already did, he just didn't agree with one of them, which is fine. I've got a few other points now though: the last ones, I promise.
  1. You say the Cane Toad has become a pest, can you reference that for us non-Australians so we know it's not overstated?
  2. Salties also live in fresh water rivers? Was that a typo or is that something I just didn't know?
  3. Since Australia has the most venomous snakes of any continent in the world, I think a snake picture is appropriate in that section. If you need the space, I suggest you remove the lizard one.
  4. The same goes for spiders, but they're not as important.
  5. Is archæological proper Aussie spelling? - Mgm|(talk) 19:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Cane Toad, along with the rabbit and the fox, is the most destructive and virulently despised introduced pest, and especially prominent since it has become established in Australia's Eden. So concerning is its spread, that the CSIRO is developing biological controls. The Australian Museum confirms its status. Footnote forthcoming.
Saltwater Crocodile is a misnomer: they do habit freshwater rivers and so on.
Yes, archæological is proper AusE.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to have a photo of a snake or spider, but there are no free snake pictures as far as I can tell. There is one free spider picture that I know of, but I'm not sure that the identification is correct. I'm happy to alter the pics if and when there are some with compatible licences.--nixie 22:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to identify one of the spider pics more conclusively so it is in the article now.--nixie 00:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to a good external website with images of lots of Australian snakes and other venomous species, which will hopefully take care of that point until there are some free snake images.--nixie 03:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. I like has this article has developed. --ZeWrestler Talk 20:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support excellent article. Oh and Salties also live in fresh water rivers? Was that a typo or is that something I just didn't know? They move between both salt and fresh water. Sabine's Sunbird 20:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Object - beautiful article, well written and illustrated. One (easy to fix) issue though - I think the bloody cane toad needs a bit more written about it. You use very strong words, "disastrous" and "devastating" but don't explain why so. Without the two "d" words it would have been ok, but those particular words demand a little bit more info about their impact. I'd mention their hardiness and adaptability, their extreme toxicity and their seemingly unstoppable encroachment in a mere 70 years. (I think they've spread into Kakadu, of all places, so "disastrous" may yet become "catastrophic"). A couple of brief sentences would cover it. Everything else is great. Rossrs 09:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an extra sentence specifying their effect.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sums it up nicely. Thank you. Rossrs 13:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Fierce Snake deserves illustration and as it's the most venomous land snake in the world, it's "notable". Probably more notable than the blue-tongued lizard, but even though the lizard picture is less "sexy" (to paraphrase a previous editor), it's a great image just the same. I've never seen a blue-tongue with its mouth wide open like that showing its tongue and the blue-tongued lizard is quite iconic in Australia. If both photos could be used, I'd be extremely pleased. Rossrs 11:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to use Image:FierceSnake Olive.jpg, you need to provide a source. And no, "From German Wikipedia" isn't good enough. --Carnildo 19:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, apparently it's not as free as I thought. Maybe we can have the Image sleuths take a look at this and see if they can dig up a free version? - Mgm|(talk) 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed it now and contacted some active Sleuths to take a look at it. Hopefully they'll come up with a free alternative in a couple of days. - Mgm|(talk) 20:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm not going to let the one missing image throw me off, but I'll keep trying to find a free alternative for the snake image. Thanks for addressing my concerns. - Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fauna_of_Australia&oldid=1138460158"