Talk:Great auk/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 17:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(beginning review) Comments

Lead

• "had a white patch over the eye" - one patch over one eye, or what?

Done. Each eye.

• "Great Auk pairs mated for life and met in early to mid May" - they separate after pairing, then meet again the following May?

LOL. They mate for life, but originally meet at that time/ that was the start of their breeding cycle. I eliminated the second half (intro is a touch long anywho) and will make sure Reproduction makes that clear.

Description

• "The legs were far back on the bird's body to give it more powerful swimming and diving abilities" - sounds like evolution had a goal in this case.

Yep.

• "The auk’s calls included low croaking and a hoarse scream. A captive auk was noted to give a gurgling noise when anxious. It is not known what its vocalizations were like, but it is believed that they were similar to those of the Razorbill, only louder and deeper." haven't you just said they have a low croaking and a hoarse scream?

Calls and vocalizations differ in meaning. To ornithologists. Added the word other in there so it makes more sense.

Ecology and behavior

• "The auk used its bill aggressively both in the dense nesting sites" - but don't they lay eggs on bare rocks?

But the auks still nest together. Bare rocks, but close enough that neighboring nests are within bill's reach.

• How is it that the orca was a main predator?

• This is a dead link: http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v096n04/p0790-p0792

New link.

Article as a whole

• I think that there are too many images. They even bleed down into the references section. I know that it is hard to part with images, but the Auk basically looks the same in all of them. You should pick the ones that show special features. In my opinion, it diminished the value of the individual images when you have so many. When there are a chosen few, the reader does not skip over them but lingers on each one.

Eliminated two pictures.

• I keep wishing that you would say which Native Americans you were referring to, as a great many did not live in the areas frequented by the Auk. Mostly, I imagine you were talking about those in the very north. Did some of the articles mention specific tribes?

Yesish, with several mentioned by name elsewhere. I put "coexisting with the Great Auk" next to the two just NAmericans mentions.

• In general, this is a fine article and worthy of GA. I would appreciate it if you would address the few issues I have raised, as well as the dead link.

Xtzou (Talk) 21:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. I've replaced the dead link and will actually sit down with the review later. One question though- what do you mean by "how is it that the orca was a main predator"? They both are aquatic, so what eliminates the possibility? Thanks again, and I should knock this out within the next six hours. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Auk was a swift and strong swimmer, so why would an orca have the advantage, being much larger and most likely slower? Also, do Orcas hang out in shallow water. You said the Auk doesn't go deep frequently because of the energy involved. And why orcas, of all large predators? (Since the Auk became extinct before much about marine life was known - compared to today's knowledge - is some of these just hypotheses and guesses about the Auk?) Xtzou (Talk) 22:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking into that. Be back soon. Thank you again for the review; I think everything but the orca is fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The source says probable. However, orcas eat penguins, cormorants, and sea gulls, so they have it in them. Orcas do hang in shallow water- they have to breathe and they are often seen near shore by tour boats. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Further comments
• I had to change that one sentence so it doesn't seem like evolution has specific goals.

Oh, thats what you meant. Sorry I didn't get it, and good catch.

• Could do with one less picture (one of the stuffed ones could go), but I know that is a matter of opinion. What is the illustration "Bones from a kitchen midden" supposed to show? The caption is not enlightening.

I tend to like articles where there is always a picture on the screen as you scroll through. Additionally, there are only three stuffed auks, one in the infobox, one showing the front, and one at the end. I don't see this as overkill. I cleared up the caption.

• I cringe a little seeing the caption In popular culture, as it may encourage additions if the Auk is mentioned on an episode of the Family Guy or the likes. Can you think of a different name for that section?

Stole "Cultural depictions" from Superb Fairywren.

Xtzou (Talk) 15:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Think I answered your new comments. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have. Thanks! Xtzou (Talk) 21:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clear and concise writing

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Sources are reliable

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced where needed

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Broad in scope

   B. Focused: } Remains focused on topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 21:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)