Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pelican/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:16, 12 August 2012 [1].

Pelican[edit]

Pelican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC), Maias (talk · contribs), MeegsC (talk · contribs), Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) [reply]

This has been the most collaborative bird article collaboration I can remember for a while. Lots of folks have helped out and I think it's polished up pretty nicely. I find some genus- and family-level articles tricky as one has to be selective about material to be used, so am interested to hear from folks on content as this has been less straightforward than other articles I've been used to bringing here. Still, it was fun working on it and I think we're in striking distance of FA quality, so help us out and have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting (if any). Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I will try very hard to avoid silly limericks. Skimming ... it looks great. More later. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteen minutes till the first Pelican jokemy mistake, you specifically stated you wouldn't make one....not bad.... ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frigatebirds, cormorants, gannets and boobies, and tropicbirds": Any objection to "frigatebirds, cormorants, tropicbirds, and gannets and boobies"? Done
  • "The supposed Miocene pelican Liptornis from Argentina is a nomen dubium, being based on hitherto indeterminable fragments.": I'm a bit dubium myself; can you reword for clarity?
    • Clarified parenthetically though I doubt the necessity given the phrase is linked. Maias (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does "being based on hitherto indeterminable fragments" mean? Needs attention. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list in that section, please put commas or colons after the species names. Done
  • "terminally hooked, bills": terminally hooked bills Done
  • "fully webbed, feet": fully webbed feet Done
  • "they are relatively light", "They are among the heaviest flying birds": ?
    • Reworded relevant passage to avoid jarring, though both statements are correct. Maias (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can be as little as 2.75 kilograms (6.1 lb), 1.06 metres (3.5 ft) long, and can have a wingspan ...": can be no more than 2.75 kilograms (6.1 lb) and 1.06 metres (3.5 ft) long, with a wingspan
  • "at up to 15 kilograms (33 lb), 1.83 metres (6.0 ft) long": at up to 15 kilograms (33 lb) and 1.83 metres (6.0 ft) in length
  • "once reproduction commences": My layman's understanding is that "reproduction" is a long and not clearly defined process; would "mating" work?
    • No; "mating" is more specific. Reproduction covers the reproductive cycle from courtship and nest-building to feeding the chicks. Maybe "once the reproductive cycle commences..." Maias (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • reworded to "once females have laid eggs", which is aligns with the source Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the skin of throat": the skin of the throat
  • Continuing. "The male brings the nesting material, ground-nesters (which may not build a nest) sometimes in the pouch ...": I don't follow. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nesting material for the ground-nesters, which may not build a nest? Needs attention. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Aha, this refers to the two subgroups of pelicans, known as "tree-nesters" and "ground-nesters" - the text is assuming too much familiarity so will reword have reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The newly hatched altricial chicks are pink and naked; their skin darkens to grey or black within 4–14 days before developing a covering": 4 to 14 days after hatching, or 4 to 14 days before the covering develops?
    • I got this one ... I took a guess, check it. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The Persecution section isn't entirely about persecution; another word would be better. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Culling...as that is the topic discussed (i.e. reduction of population by killing) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got another "persecution" in the text. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "in Peru in spring 2012": Peru is just below the equator; it would be better to name the months.
    • This is tricky - I changed it to, " In May 2012, Hundreds of Peruvian Pelicans were reported to have perished " - as I know when the reporting was but can't say whether the pelicans died in April or May..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fish at the Salton Sea": Not sure what that meant, so I changed "at" to "from".
  • "Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge named for the religious festival nearest the date of their establishment, and one of each carried this feasts' name and symbol.": I'm confused on several points here, and it seems partly redundant with the following sentence.
  • "of Barbados, Sint Maarten and of Saint Kitts and Nevis": nonparallel Done
  • "and is featured on their coats of arms": which ones? Done
  • "is used on the state flag": appears on the state flag Done
  • "Pelican Books, a series of non-fiction books published by Penguin Books": Pelican is an imprint of Penguin, not a series of books.changed
  • Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) I've marked a few things as needing attention above. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A study of the parasites of the American White Pelican..." - source?
Fixed, a long sentence became split across paragraphs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check editor formatting - varies wildly
editors aligned now Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
should be unspaced initials in refs. Fixed all now (I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations, and if so what info is included - for example, you sometimes include UK for London and sometimes not
got 'em all I think... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN47: page format
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
  • FN65: accessdate?
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
got dble pds Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
just a question

Unable to vocalise, adult pelicans rely on visual displays and behaviour to communicate, particularly using their wings and bills. ... Conversely, colonies are noisy as chicks vocalise extensively. - how come chicks can vocalise and adults can't at all? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good question. I have no idea as I haven't found an explanation. If we can find something we should definitely add... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to update, I've been looking and this I can't find this being discussed in the literature thus far... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that it's more a matter of don't vocalise, rather than can't. Many seabirds, for example, are noisy when breeding, but silent at sea. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something along those lines, I mean if their larynxes atrophied it'd be pretty significant and discussed somewhere....?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Crisco 1492
English file description made on Commons. Snowman (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File details on Commons enhanced. The red link and a few other problems was due to old vand, which I have reverted. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the watermark. Snowman (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this suggests the correct permission finally came through, but despite this, I think we can lose as this section packed with images and I think others are more striking or integral to the article, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presuming the church is centuries old, so there's no problem with copyright....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
replaced now by Elizabeth I wearing a pelican symbol.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, #Mythology and popular culture is a wall of images. Perhaps you should trim some. #Pre-Columbian America is really not long enough for its own section. Any further info? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes I was thnking this section might need some reorganising or adding.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Air sacs should be spaced under "network of subcutaneous airsacs" and "internal airsacs in their bones" Lemonade51 (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good pick up. Now spaced as "air sac" + best link is to Bird_anatomy#Skeletal_system currently (which needs expansion itself....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only briefly skimming the article

  • Section "taxonomy" - introduction text uses family members (Herons, Ibises, ...). Cladogram uses family names (Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae). ==> Is it possible to include either the mentioned members in the graph or the family names in the text to provide better context between the two? Not an error by any means, just a bit confusing for the layman. GermanJoe (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
good point. cladogram fixed to mention common names and make it more accessible Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Most of my concerns were addressed. It's a good article and I think it satisfies the FA criteria. Nice work! Regards, RJH (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It's looking good with perhaps a handful of areas that could use a little more coverage. Here are my nit-picky observations:

  • I'd like to see the multiple images in the 'Etymology', 'Breeding and lifespan', and 'Mythology and popular culture' sections be grouped together using {{Multiple images}} templates. This gives a nice layout and eliminates the white lines.
yes, they do improve things... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the past" is when?
Removed as rendered redundant by "was".... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see an explanation of why adults don't vocalize. Did I miss it?
Annoyingly, I can't find any discussion of why this is so, only that they don't... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement I keep seeing during a search is that pelicans "rarely" vocalize when they are away from their nesting sites, but are capable of low grunts.[2]
Hmmm, that's blocked for me here in Oz :P ....I'll look for some grunts elsewhere... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
update - have found refs for 7/8 species stating the adults grunt in colonies and in breeding season and are generally silent elsewhere. The one I've not found is the Peruvian...Added now Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no mention of skimming behavior (through the use of ground effect), nor why they do it.
I'm not finding anything to this being a behaviour specific for pelicans to date (in fact, can't find anything much discussing pelicans skimming).....so haven't added as yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one: [3]
Hmmm, that's blocked for me as well here in Oz :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[4][5][6][7][8][9] There's even a Boeing design based on the same effect.[10] "By flying low, the Pelican, like its name-sake, exploits the aerodynamic benefits of a well-known phenomenon called ground effect."
Okay, added something now - nice find.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it becomes tricky figuring which info about a species to use etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should there be a mention of the effects of DDT on the Brown pelican population?
I just realised we've touched upon it at Pelican#Populations - do you think we should expand here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How good are their senses? I'd guess they have very good vision as they are mobile predators. Probably color vision as well, since their body hue changes.
Err, most birds have good vision, and AFAIK they all have colour vision. I'm not finding anything specific on pelican senses/sight/vision to date.....so haven't added as yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. What appears to be a relatively unusual feature of Pelicans (and some other diving birds) is their ability to modify their eyes for underwater vision. RJH (talk)
They eat discarded dead fish. Can they smell fish like some types of seabirds? Snowman (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monotypic", "remiges" and "Agonistic behaviour" is unlinked jargon.
Anll linked now... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been suggested" is WP:WEASEL. The source appears to be Louise Wood, per the ref.
attributed now, though had to flip sentence order otherwise didn't make sense... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • Systema Naturae has its own article, with a link to the online work in the first reference. Use of one or the other link would be good.
you mean 10th edition of Systema Naturae? Now linked. Shall I de-link parent article..? Casliber (talk · contribs)
Ah, okay. In that case I meant the reference, which could use a link to the book source.
url to Systema Naturae page added to ref Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hackett, S. J.; ... ; Yuri, T" is missing a final period.
got it Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wackenhut, M" is missing a period.
got it Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a link for Knowles (1981), although it's a different edition: [11]
I'll take it Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first statement is problematic for me Pelicans are a genus of large water birds in the family Pelecanidae. It makes it sound like the genus is one of many in the family. Pelicans are a a family of birds, as well as a genus, and the first sentence should be reworded to reflect this. I'll take a longer look at this soon Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should we call it a family consisting of a single genus of eight species then or something..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked wording. Maias (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also regarding the pelicans in New Zealand, the source is old and doesn't reflect modern thinking, which is that the sparse number of pelican fossils recovered represent just vagrant birds (Worthy and Holdaway, 2002). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Updated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "... with very long, terminally hooked bills". This seems vague to me because it does not say clearly if it is the upper mandible, lower mandible, or both mandibles that are hooked. See File:Pelican with open pouch.jpg, which indicates that the hook is only on the tip of the upper mandible. Snowman (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree this needs rewriting. I know it, I just need a source which describes the bill in that detail. Shouldn't be hard but late here and I am going to sleep in a minute Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I have reworded it to clarify where the hook is and its shape from the source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: File:Pelikan Walvis Bay.jpg. One wing tip is not included in the image. This is currently the infobox image. I like this image including its colours, but we generally show photographs in the infobox that show all of the bird. Is it suitable for the infobox image of an FA article? Snowman (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a shame part of its wing is missing. My feeling is that it would be nice for the photo to be of the type species (onocrotalus) and it would be nice to be in the wild, but this might be trumped by another species if something really good turned up. Do you have any suggestions of all the pelican photos you've seen? I think we are all open to ideas on this. My idea was for it not to be one just sitting in the water as I like how we have all eight species in the water which I think looks really good, hence some contrast would be prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to be difficult to find a better photograph for the infobox. I have seen a good photograph of a Brown Pelican flying, but brown birds may not be particularly photogenic to most non-ornithologists. Any other suggestions. Snowman (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through alot without a great deal of candidates - the Australian Pelican seems the most photogenic, maybe this one...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a pelican next to a familiar object, so its huge size is apparent. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this one for comparison? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are always looking for better images. Perhaps, a better image for the infobox will turn up sometime. Snowman (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fe: "Although they are among the heaviest of flying birds, they are relatively light for their size because of air pockets in the skeleton and beneath the skin enabling them to float high in the water." Readability could be improved a lot, perhaps by expanding at least three of the concepts included in this complex sentence. Snowman (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think I agree with you on this one and will see what I can find Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit uneasy that the reference about the air sacs is from 1939 and that only two birds were dissected. In humans air can get under the skin pathologically. Are there any more recent references? Are there any illustrations of air sacs? Do any other birds have air sacs under their skin or is this only for pelicans? Excuse me, I am a stickler with anatomy. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Air sacs are widely mentioned in material on pelicans, and this paper has been mentioned as a reference in some of them. I have been surprised there is nothing in anywhere near as much detail published since (that I've found). I will go back to the paper to see. I have not heard of other birds having these air sacs but wouldn't be surprised. I typed in alot of keywords into google scholar and jstor and came up with little. If anyone else finds anything I would be happy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re; "... if its internal organs (viscera) change shape." I am mystified by this. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. after a meal or carrying fish. I will go back to the source and look again to see if I can add anything which it says.Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are "protuberances due to contents of the intestinal tract" the only explanation for changes in the shape of viscera? I doubt if eggs that are almost ready to be laid are protuberant, but I might be wrong? Snowman (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "internal organs changing shape" sounds odd and I think is needs re-phrasing and explaining. Snowman (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source says, "the maintenance of body contours and the compensation for changes in the size and position of the viscera. The maintenance of these contours is most essential to most perfect flight." I have rejigged to, "and also to keep the bird's contours as aerodynamic as possible when flying". Is that any better? I am finding it somewhat tricky to reword and keep meaning without paraphrasing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at the source and extracted some information from it for the wiki article. Snowman (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks ok to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "^ The US Government has not accepted the elevation of the two taxa into separate species." Presumably, this should be referenced. Snowman (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's the paper which gives the total BP population -I'll add it in the morning if someone doesn't get there overnight 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I tried adding the ref into the footnote, but it messed up the coding. I is the Fish and Wildlife Service ref (currently FN 70) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could use the template {{efn}} together with "notelist" for explanatory footnotes, if you don't mind the different template. It definately can handle nested citations in explanatory footnotes. GermanJoe (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I did not know that one, thanks...It works! Great/thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stragglers from Australia": Is "stragglers" the wrong word? This suggests that pelicans go on a journey and some are left behind. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the odd usage, but I have seen the word frequently used for "vagrant". Given the latter does not have the ambiguity, I will have substituted the word.Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be useful to show a photograph of the nobs on the pelicans bills, since this is featured in the text and there are photographs of them on Commons. Snowman (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - this and this are good for the hook but I want to avoid over-using one species images in the article Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the knobs on the bills of American White Pelicans not the hooks at the end of the bills; like this one File:Pelecanus erythrorhynchos -Tulsa Zoo, Oklahoma, USA-8b.jpg. Snowman (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake - will get looking.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For balance, I think the article would be better if the article showed a photograph of a nesting colony (or nest) of a ground-nesting species. Snowman (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have showed a photograph of Am White Pelican chicks in a nest on the ground. Snowman (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is a good addition Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduction: I think that the introduction should make more of the large pouch of pelicans and also their large size, large wings, and that they are one of the largest birds to fly. I think that some sections of the text are minimally represented in the introduction. Is the introduction a bit short? Snowman (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the intro might be a bit short - as we embellish the other bits I'll see what we can add. lead embellished now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description of juveniles is usually in the description section and not the breeding section, so I have reorganised and moved some text, but it was not entirely clear which in-line reference to copy. The information on juveniles is rather sparse in the article. Juveniles after the downy stage are not described in the article. Is there anything common about the colours of beaks, feet, eyes of juveniles in the pelican species that could be added to the article. How old are pelicans before they look like adults? Snowman (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had other jobs come up urgently so haven't had time to look at this and other questions above in too much detail tonight (or last night for that matter). Will look in the morning Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a last thing, the change has preserved the referencing correctly...now I really need to sleep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to find a little on immature plumage - but it is hard to find information generalisable to the genus as a whole. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the breeding section: "They are mature at three or four years old." Does this imply that they breed at age three or four years? Is this referring to adult morphology that should be in the description section? What does a one or two year old pelican look like? Snowman (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I always take it to mean (and I've always seen it mean) ability to breed and raise young. When talking about plumage generally texts will talk of adopting adult plumage Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its metabolite DDE ..."; Is DDE the result of metabolism of DDT in fish (or other pelican food), or in pelicans, or both? I am asking this, because the article does not make it clear and I think that the readability and prose of the whole paragraph could be improved if this was explained better. The article says that DDT accumulates in fish; however, this may be an oversimplification if DDT is metabolised to DDE in fish. This article explains some aspects of DDE and DDT. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to get too technical about the biochemistry. If anyone reading the article is that interested they can follow the links and chase up the sources. If it is already too technical, cut out mention of DDE. Maias (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biochemistry is part of the article and we are aiming for FA standards. The article says that DDT accumulates in fish and also that DDT is metabolised to DDE, but it can not be both. Snowman (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly can where it is not 100% metabolised immediately; it can be stored in fat and then metabolised as the fat is drawn upon as an energy source. Maias (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can not be 100% both. Snowman (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not claim so; all it says it that DDT may be accumulated and, that when it is metabolised, DDE is a product, one that is toxic to pelicans. If this is not clear, then please amend it. Keep in mind, though, that the articles focus is on pelicans, not on toxicants and metabolic pathways that affect many other animals. We could put in all kinds of toxicological stuff about domoic acid or endrin or heavy metals, and exactly how they affect pelicans, but it might be better to keep such detail to articles about the toxicants concerned and provide links to them. Maias (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is repetition about DDT in the "Poisoning and pollution" and "Populations" sections. Snowman (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a challenge to minimise as much repetition as possible. Do you think we can minimise it further without disrupting the flow? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image layout - after all the great work put into this article i would be glad to support, but image usage should be re-checked:

  • Breeding and lifespan- gallery (WP:Galleries). WP:Galleries has some (relatively) clear rules for galleries and i don't see, how this gallery complies with them. A gallery should a. not be replacable with separate, interspersed images (it is), b. should not contain repetitive images (first and second one are a bit repetitive) and c. should have a clear and comprehensive theme (if "nesting habits" is the theme, a gallery is not needed for just 2 distinct habits). The section has enough text to handle atleast 2 images, maybe even all 3. Also, the images should be displayed a bit larger, layout and details of the nesting areas are hard to see in this size.
  • Deepwater horizon oil spill - multiple images (WP:NPOV). The images are nice, but present the topic in an overly emotional construction (polluted birds -> enthusiastic helpers -> happy, free flying bird) with unencyclopedic captions. I am for environment protection just as much as the next guy, but Wiki articles aren't meant to spread "messages" in that manner. Suggestion: Keep the first 2 images, split them in separate images and add neutral, un-involved captions (like "Brown pelicans, covered with oil, after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010" and "Volunteers (they are volunteers?) wash an oiled Brown Pelican at a rescue center in Fort Jackson, 2010").
another editor rejigged as a gallery the other day, which I meant to fix, and have now done so. Also rejigged the other image as suggested. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support after another read-through, meets all FA-criteria. Two Three final comments:

  • description of distribution ==> lead has "though they are absent from much of interior and southern South America", main text is "they are absent from polar regions, the deep ocean, oceanic islands (except the Galapagos), and inland South America, as well as from the eastern coast of South America from the mouth of the Amazon River southwards.". These descriptions seem to differ slightly (the mouth of the Amazon River is not in "interior and southern South America").
  • Description - "The tail is short and square, with 20 to 24 retrices. The wings are long and broad, suitably shaped for soaring and gliding flight, and have the unusually large number of 30 to 35 secondary flight feathers." ==> Lots of information and the end of a paragraph, a source (or duplication of existing source, if the next para has the same source) should be added.
    • found ref, though no idea where retrices number comes from (not in that one). have commented out number for the time being until a source is available Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breeding - "Parents of ground-nesting species sometimes drag older young around roughly by the head before feeding them." ==> any information, why they drag them like that? Also source for this observation? GermanJoe (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS for images, shouldn't the picture of Queen Elizabeth I face the text (perhaps by left aligning it under the Christianity section)? FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that but was concerned it'd interrupt the headings on the LHS. An image is also not supposed to go directly under a lvl 3 header....if you want to rearrange I am open to this.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How if it was moved left over the paragraph starting with "The self-sacrificial aspect of the pelican was reinforced". Then it would not be directly under the header? It would interfere with the "Heraldry" header, but the video further above also interferes with the "Breeding and lifespan" header. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it now. We can just see how folks feel in general.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks alright to me, though I'm not sure anyone else would notice... FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that made me wonder is the "knob" on the white pelican, had never heard of it before. Does it have any other function than display? Could maybe be good to mention what the function is, as it features prominently in the article, both in an image and in the text. Do both sexes possess them? FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See I thought the placement of the mention (among bright skin in pre-breeding time) indicated it was to do with courtship. Will look tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understood that, but I was wondering whether it was only used for display during courtship, or perhaps more than that (something physical between mates or competitors), but perhaps it is too much detail in an article about pelicans in general? The article about the species itself isn't to much help though, the general pelican article has more detail about the knob. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2012 (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_candidates/Pelican/archive1&oldid=1046369380"