Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seabird

Seabird[edit]

Self nom. Massive subject, but all the important points about seabird biology have been dealt with. No doubt some breakout articles will appear in the future (seabird colonies already has). This article is the result of months of work (interspersed with months of looking at it hating it), but I finally think it is ready now. It's been to two peer reviews (the first and the second), the points there having been addressed. To preempt one possible comment, to be a seabird is a niche, not a clade; many disparate families are seabirds. For this reason the article deals with trends associated with seabirds, rather than numerous absolute statements about seabirds (though there are plenty of cited examples of those trends). Anyway, I hope you can support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article covers a huge topic very concisely. As regards seabirds and humans it might be worth mentioning the fact that some seabird colonies are major tourist attractions, for example the pengin colonies at the Valdes Peninsula in Argentina and at Philip Island in Australia. Rhion 07:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned tourism. Ta! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Support. The article makes the point that seabirds are a collection of related ecological types clear. Added a few things about historical diversity (highest Mio/Pliocene) and as to why it has since declined. Dysmorodrepanis 07:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. Rlevse 12:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article! Some P. E rson 14:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent work, but I find the article to be undercited. I won't object on that basis, as I believe this deficiency can be easily corrected. As a random example of a section that should be cited: "Seabirds, by virtue of living in a geologically depositional environment (that is, in the sea where sediments are readily laid down), are well represented in the fossil record. They are first known to occur in the Cretaceous era, the earliest being the Hesperornithiformes, like Hesperornis regalis, a flightless loon-like seabird that dove in a similar fashion to loons and cormorants (using its feet to move underwater) but had a beak filled with sharp teeth." Sandy 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many highly generalised statements are hard to cite from primary sources (journals)- they all either come from Schreiber & Burger,(2001) or Gaston 2004, which are review works that pull everything together and synthesise it. The section you gave an example is from Schreiber & Burger. I'll try and cite some more of these kinds of statement. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited more statements, particularly in breeding colonies and evolution. It's now up to 60 refs and 80 ish cites. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sandy 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I nominated this article for GA status, and believe it is FA material. Judgesurreal777 17:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nicely done. – Clockwork Soul 20:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought this was an excellent article when I looked over it in the second peer review and since all the points I raised then have been addressed, I can't very well not support it. For such a wide subject I found it remarkably comprehensive. Yomangani ^talk 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; well done. I did some copyediting, and fixed a few things. One thing I find somewhat annoying is the back and forth between present tense and future tense when describing the habits of the birds. I'd like to see all present tense (remove virtually all instances of "will" from the prose), but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a stylistic preference. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preference myself, I wasn't even aware I had done it. Thanks for your support and your previous help on the peer review. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the role in culture section needs some work. Regarding the opening sentence, "study" has nothing to do with what's being discussed here. Use of the phrase "popular consciousness" is quite strange for this subject. It says gulls and albatrosses are most 'popular', then goes on to discuss pelicans in the next sentence, then discusses albatrosses, then skips a line and discusses gulls in a new paragraph - poor organization. "It is widely considered unlucky to harm them" - by whom? I don't believe this, and my intuition tells me that I'm not in the minority. Saying that "'sailors believed this or that' is an urban legend" is awkward. Using quotes from a Disney movie to explain something is highly informal. Lord of the Rings example is too detailed. Personally, I'd just delete the section. It discusses isolated things relating to specific types of seabirds, not things common to seabirds in general. The article wouldn't lose much without it. Punctured Bicycle 13:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteing the section would be counterprodutive, it would invite laundry lists namechecking every seabird (see below). I've argued for keeping the LOTR section long in the peer review - I said Having an explanation of how birds fit into popular culture, rather than simply stating they do with an example, is more rewarding, and it leaves less room for every fanboy to come and list how their fad has a seabird in it. I'd rather have one example, explained well, than a list namechecking every reference. As for quoting Disney I don't consider it informal - you'd be hard pressed to find a more 'popular' culture or 'mass' media. The storm petrel bit did use the past tense, I've tried to make it clearer it was refering to sailors considering it unlucky. I've re-organised per your comments and cited some more stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support. very nice! Can I request a nice big link to wikispecies in the "seabird families" section? Witt y lama 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that seabirds aren't a clade wouldn't that be better on the individual family and order pages? Procellariidae and Albatross are already featured and I have plans for the rest. Thanks for your support! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks great. Informative, well referenced, well written, and all the rest. Very well done. Ryu Kaze 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support nice job. --Pedro 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, another excellent bird article. --Peta 02:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]