Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bald Eagle

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Bald Eagle edit

Currently GA status. This article is comprehensive and well referenced.--Jude. 17:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first footnote has bad formatting and another has a red date.Rlevse 18:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just fixed it.--Jude. 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Fixes needed - pending slotting in the kilometres/hour where miles per hour are; an easy fix. The prose is good and flows fairly well. congrats. still not far off but agree with most of Ravedave's points. I was confused about the mention of washingtoniensis under subspecies - where does that fit in? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't mind the ref to symbolism in first line as it is instantly recognizable as such and heavily connected with US emblem.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most other sources I have found don't refer to this fact in the opening paragraph let alone sentence. I'm willing to defer to consensus though. -Ravedave 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ——Supporpt Oppose
    • I don't believe the fact that it is the U.S.'s symbol is necessary in the first sentence. (This is just my opinion though, not a blocker)
    • Probably worth saying that it is a Sea Eagle at the very beginning.  Done
    • The subspecies range descriptions are poor. Done
    • (Wink et al. 1996[9]) should be a note.  Done
What do you mean by a note? That it should be a footnote?--Jude. 15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry, footnote, so as to make all the references the same format. -Ravedave 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "The Bald Eagle forms a species pair with the Eurasian White-tailed Eagle. " paragraph reads poorly. It's also not logically grouped, it goes diversion/description/diversion/description  Done
    • "... although longer and narrower bodies of water can support breeding pairs.[11]" - ? Diameter is never mentioned only circumference. Done
    • "Bald Eagles will also congregate in certain locations in winter." - can you find info on why? Would be great to add.  Done
    • "but most eagles live mostly off of fish. " - Could this be phrased better? Done
    • "and they can scavenge carcasses up to the size of whales," "Can"? shouldn't this be "will? Done
    • Reproduction - The sentences in the first paragraph are out of order and poorly fit together. Done
      • Much better, Thanks!
    • I stopped looking at copy editing at reproduction. This article needs thorough copy editing.
    • I don't believe the Ben Franklin quote is really worth having  Done
    • The "Bald Eagles in Native American culture" needs to be longer if this is to be an FA. Not all Native Americans belong to the same tribe, any beliefs need to be associated with a tribe/group. It's like saying "Europeans don't eat meat on Fridays during lent." Done

-Ravedave 05:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the improvements. Here are some additional things:
    • Taken from a conversation Casliber and I were having: It appears that both the golden eagle and Bald eagle have feathered legs. Compare these pictures [1], [2]. Perhaps the word "completely" is missing, as the golden eagles feathers extend further down the legs all the way onto the top of the feet. Here's a ref:[3]  Done
      • Article has another sentence that says "The legs are unfeathered"
        • The source you provided says that the Bald Eagle has "unfeathered yellow legs". I think that the just the tarsi are unfeathered, while the upper leg is.--Jude. 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the nominate subspecies be listed first (even though it's not alphabetical?) Done
    • "..water with an abundance of warm-water fishes." - uh... Salmon are a cold water fish, and they flock to salmon spawning areas. I'm not sure that cold/warm water fish is even full defined from what I can find on google. I don't think I would call the fish here in Minnesota "tropical" or warm-water, but the eagles seem fine. Done
    • I didn't mention that I added two fact tags during my previous pass. Done
I referenced the spiricules, but deleted the weight carrying capacity, as I couldn't find any references to it.
    • "Though its population has declined within the last half century" - 50 years ago = 1950's. The population in the lower US is much higher now than then, was there a decline in Canada or something? Done
      • I think it was meant to say that it had declined but now is recovered.--Jude. 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that DDT was banned in the US should be mentioned in the recovery area. Done
    • "It is probably one of the country's most recognizable symbols," - "probably"? Weasel word. Done
    • If possible move all of the items in the references section to the footnotes section, where applicable. Done
    • The external links section has some "Retrieved blah blah" notes, were these supposed to be references?
    • The external links need to be cleaned, and better titled. I personally like how Minnesota seperates them into sections, but it's up to you.
      • Most of the links were to sites that were fact pages with information that's already in the article, which I got rid of, and I put the video of Bald Eagles in a subsection.--Jude. 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Ravedave 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 3rd round.
    • Article now has measurements in Metric first, which is fine, however they are not always backed up by imperial conversion. They are also missing the   between the # and unit. Done
    • "tonnes" - this article is about a North American bird, should be in American English. Done
      • 'Tonne' is the standard name the world over; 'metric ton' is just an unofficial colloquialism. Suggest restoring 'tonne' - MPF 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is going on with H. l. washingtoniensis vs H. l. alascanus and the flipping back and forth? If this is a point of debate, or has recently changed etc it should be noted in the article.
      • Basically, what happened was that Audubon saw a large eagle in Kentucky, concluded that it was a distinct species from the bald eagle, and gave in the name Falco washingtoniensis. It was later decided that the bird was a wintering immature bald eagle, and the name washingtoniensis was more or less forgotten. Then in 1897, Townsend determined that northern and southern specimens differed in size, and he assigned the larger northern birds to the new subspecies H. l. alascanus. Then it was pointed out that Audubon's washingtoniensis and Townsend's alascanus were both northern populations of Haliaeetus leucocephalus and that the two should be considered synonyms. Then Mengel objected to this, since it was unclear whether Audubon's bird was actually a bald eagle, and recommended that the name alascanus be used for the northern race of Haliaeetus leucocephalus. In 1957, the A.O.U. decided to use the name alascanus for the northern subspecies. Anyway, that's the way I understand it. But ITIS uses H. l. alascanus, and as far as I know there's no current debate on the subject.--Jude. 03:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apparently it is, as it has flipped again. -Ravedave 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, missed this before, with its being higher up the page. Under the ICZN, the oldest validly published name always takes precedence, unless the older name has been formally suppressed by a vote of an International Zoological Congress; washingtoniensis has not been so suppressed. HBW accepts washingtoniensis as the valid name and states "Race alascanus/alascensis synonymous with washingtoniensis". Why ITIS don't, I don't know, but it is very far from the first error I've seen on ITIS (over at WP:Plants, it is pretty much ignored as a resource because of its error rate). - MPF 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright, sounds good. HBW is the "de facto standard" for Wikiproject Birds, so whatever it says goes. --Jude. 21:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to see better sources on the range map, or have it removed. The map it is based on simply shows an outline of where it will show up, not the various breeding/migrating spots, so that part of it is basically unsourced. This map [4] disagrees with it in a couple of areas.
      • The map as it stood before my edits is derived from Sibley's Bird Guide (recognisably the same pattern of locations - whether this constitutes copyvio or not I don't know, but if it does, then every bird map on wikipedia is copyvio!); I added stars for vagrant locations derived from the BOU report (already cited on the page) for Ireland, and from Avibase for the others (the placing of the Russian star is inevitably somewhat conjectural; the rest, the star size on the map more than covers the areas of the locations to which they refer). Sibley is a good enough reference for its time, but I suspect the range has changed in the subsequent ten years or so with continuing population recovery, particularly in the east; a more up-to-date source would be good if it can be found. I'd also suggest changing the colours to something more easily interpreted (e.g. yellow for summer, green for resident, blue for winter); I'd have done this but didn't know how to edit the key codes. - MPF 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The map only has one source listed currently and that is this: [5] which doesn't support the map at all. Nothing is said about "Sibley's Bird Guide". If you have resources that support the map then list them on the image page. If they are 10 years out of data, then please note that information as well. But as it stands I will not support the article if this map is included with its current references.
          • Changed source to Sibley (inc. publ. date), plus avibase for vagrant locs. MPF 08:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Tweaked the population recovery paragraph and intro sentence a bit.
    • This isn't the best use of "i.e.": (i.e., while flourishing in much of Alaska and Canada) Done
    • This ref [6] says that there is no evidence they mate for life.
      • It's generally believed that they mate for life([7][8][9]) , but not proven past all doubt. I'll add a bit about how it isn't proven, though.--Jude. 03:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Ravedave 01:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • So, are any other fixes needed, or has everything been addressed?--Jude. 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a remark above, re map. I'm sorry to keep extending thsi out but I keep finding things
      • This sentence doesn't make sense. " During migration, it may ascend in a thermal and then glide down, circle steadily down a stream of thermals, an updraft as it sweeps down against a cliff or other terrain."{done}
      • Article contradicts itself on max nest size "...and weigh up to a tonne..." "...to weigh 2.722 tonnes...". If one was found that is 2.722 tonnes, then thats the max, isn't it? Also is it possible to find out what a normal nest is like? {done}
      • "The beak is large and hooked, with a yellow cere." is repeated 2x. {done}
      • Not a blocker - Audio - I couldn't find any free audio of the BE's screeching on the net. Anyone have access to an eagle?
        • There's an audio clip on the Cornell site ([10]). But I can't figure out how to link to just the clip, and not the whole page. And it's copyrighted, but it could go under external links. --Jude. 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And finally a question that no one will probably answer: If eagles get divorced who gets the nest? :)
        • Whoever has the better lawyer? Jude. 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Ravedave 05:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is it WP:BIRD policy to have such long lead sections? Four paragraphs is a pretty long lead for a 34K article eh? I won't quibble with it if that's how bird articles are written these days, but if not, maybe shorten it up so it's more of a summary. There's a lot of pretty specific information above the ToC. In particular, a lot of those measurements could be removed. Maybe just give measurements for the female and say "with males being about 25% smaller than females" or something. I really don't think the nesting information or flight speed is necessary either. Just some thoughts. Very informative article. Sheep81 00:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out the male measurements and flight speed, and wrote that the Bald Eagle has the largest nest of any North American bird, which is the only reason why the nesting is important. I also changed it to three paragraphs. Any better?--Jude. 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pend - MPF 08:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issues: some of the references cited are not the most authoritative and/or are commercial, and some referenced weblinks are no longer accessible (notably the Linnaeus ref, which also had the wrong date cited, I corrected this to 1766). I've replaced some of the measurements with details taken from a more authoritative source (HBW), and killed one or two commercial ext links; others should be replaced too (e.g. CNN news citation of the endangered delisting, find the official govt. or IUCN announcement instead). I've also added some population figures from HBW; if more recent ones can be found, these should be added. - MPF 09:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead taxobox photo is of a captive bird in a zoo; this should be replaced with a photo of a wild bird, even if it is slightly lower resolution. Ditto throughout the article, with photos of captive birds only used to illustrate a section (unwritten as yet!) about the species' presence in zoos, captive use in falconry, etc. - MPF 09:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addenum: found some good, very hi-res (up to 4.8 MB) USFWS public domain pics, will upload later today - MPF 09:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better pics added - MPF 11:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created a section called "In captivity"(I think it could be better titled, but couldn't come up with anything). The section will have to be about their presence in zoos and museums, though, as Bald Eagles can't be used in falconry legally since they're highly protected. --Jude. 20:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things:
  • Is "armpit" the technical word in bird anatomy? If so, drop the quotes, if not, use the technical word. Done
  • In the behavior section, it suggests that eagles will summer in areas with no access to water. Is this true, and if so, do they really restrict their diet to mammalian and avian prey?  Done
Anyway, great article. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. And thanks!--Jude. 04:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Support. --Spangineerws (háblame) 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bald_Eagle&oldid=1197949199"