Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fauna of Scotland

< 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:15, 11 September 2008 [1].

Fauna of Scotland edit

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui


Fear not faint-hearts. Fauna of Scotland may be nominated by the notoriously average Ben MacDui but it has been copy edited by a person of good standing, and peer reviewed by more than one editor of repute. The deficiencies remain those of the nominator, whose knowledge of creepy-crawlies may be deficient and whose meanderings into fringe theories may provoke concern, but who nonetheless humbly submits this Good Article for your consideration. Ben MacDui 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - you may run into problems with the ToC. Putting it in such a manner disrupts may subheadings, which causes problems. Also, the red deer stag image shouldn't be directly above a formatting on the left, as it causes strange alterations and splits the text. Move it to the right and in the below section. You put the "corvus" latin name in parenthesis but not "Tetrao urogallus". "Upogebia deltaura, a mud lobster that is commonly found in Scottish maerl beds" could be shortly by removing "that is". Also, captions shouldn't be in proper sentences. "Adder" image should probably be up and to the right to avoid formatting problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia has kindly fixed the ToC and the red deer image.
Caper latin name fixed.
"that is" removed
According to MOS, sentences in captions are occasionally allowed. The beast is just an example and does not appear in the text - I think it deserves a brief description. I've removed the period, although I am not sure this is correct.
Adder moved. Ben MacDui 09:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I did not realize I was an editor of repute, but I did peer review this article and felt it was essentially at FAC quality then. It has since been improved and my only suggestion is to change the current link to fox to either Vulpes, or perhaps better to Vulpes vulpes. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks and fox dab done. Ben MacDui 09:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (PS I did not specify the precise nature of your reputation.....)[reply]
  • Image check
Well, when I read "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification" I tend to take it at face value, but what do I know? I see it is now up for deletion. There really isn't a decent replacement on Commons. I will look for an alternative asap. Now done. Ben MacDui 10:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New "eagle in flight" image uploaded - thanks to Ruhrfisch for the suggestion. I have asked a Commons licensing eagle eye to take a peep at it. Ben MacDui 09:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand the problem as I would assume it was the original uploader, but I am not an image attorney. The image opposite
is an alternative if need be.
New image now used with no licence problems that I can see. Ben MacDui 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise pretty good. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also [2] is a dead link. Couple of others were blueGreen coded and I didn't bother to check those. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BCS link fixed.
I have looked at the others and I am not sure why the bot is grumbling. They look fine to me. Ben MacDui 10:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Ling.Nut:

  • cSACs, or SACs?
User:Maedin kindly fixed the rogue one. The remaining one should, I believe be "cSAC".
  • "populations of waders". Sure, it's obvious that a wader is a wading seabird. But could it perhaps be made more obvious? Ditto for Mustelidae, commonly referred to as the weasel family.
Done Ben MacDui 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • opinion only: the deer in Image:Red-deer-glen-cristie.jpg is just a vaguely deer-shaped blotch in my browser/monitor/personal settings. I put Image:LandseerMonarch1851.JPG in and pressed the preview button, and it came out looking quite purty indeed. Is there some unspoken FAC rule that prevents the use of paintings instead of photos? Did I miss a memo somewhere?
It just looks a bit hackneyed to me, but I've replaced the blob with it. Ben MacDui 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and see comment below by Dincher. New image now to be inserted. Ben MacDui 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scottish Natural Heritage plan" is that a typo, or is that a case where our European friends consider things mass/group nouns where us feckless and shoeless 'Murcans don't?
Well I read it as "They plan" rather than "It plans". Ben MacDui 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things to consider possibly putting in the WP:LEAD:
    • Any details at all about endangered/threatened/at risk status. See forex
      • the red/amber/green lists for birds
      • the fact that red squirrels are endangered is only mentioned in a note;
The text does say "This species faces threats"
      • "Scotland's marine life could be almost wiped out within 50 years unless tough action is taken to manage the way humans use the seas".... etc.
The lead says "Conservation agencies in the UK are concerned that climate change, especially its potential effects on mountain plateaus and marine life, threaten much of the fauna of Scotland." I'm reluctant to add something to the lead that would grab the reader's attention, but which may state a view that is not shared by most conservation agencies.
    • at least a phrase or a clause about extinctions and reintroductions.. in fact, go through every major section of the article and see if it gets mentioned in the WP:LEAD, which is supposed to be a summary of the whole article...well, I dunno, you might skip the Cryptozoology section, since it might seem a little touristy to mention Nessie in the lead. But don't take it out of the article.  ;-)
It said "several of the country's larger mammals were hunted to extinction in historic times" and I've added "and human activity has also led to various species of wildlife being introduced".
    • The lead is so broad and general, it borders on being underinformative. I would suggest adding one or two specific details of animals that are unique/notable in Scotland .. you choose the ones that seem best... for example maybe (you pick! don't mechanically follow my suggestions just because I'm an accursed FAC reviewer!):
      • "The Moray Firth colony of about 100 Bottlenose Dolphins is the most northerly in the world" or whatever.
      • "Although many species of butterfly are in decline in the UK, recent research suggests that some, such as the Pearl-bordered Fritillary, Marsh Fritillary and Chequered Skipper, which are becoming rare in the rest of the UK, are moving north into Scotland in response to climate change"
Added "the most northerly colony of Bottlenose Dolphins in the world". I think it covers birds and sea creatures pretty well. Other than seals the mammals are generally outstanding by UK standards but not on a European scale. I'm reluctant to add a lot more about conservation status as these categories are subject to ongoing changes that can be hard to keep up with. Ben MacDui 12:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this at GA (CoI), and it's improved since then. When shall we see its like again? jimfbleak (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed. I hear Raptors of Scotland calling from afar. I'll be in touch if I can raise the cash for a telephoto lens. Ben MacDui 10:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work. I would prefer a photo of a Red Deer over the painting, but other than that all is well. Dincher (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. There is a better picture of a Red Deer that was in use here, but (as with so many decent wildlife images) it was not taken in Scotland, so I swopped it for the blob a while ago. I now discover , which was taken in Scotland. Unless this is controversial I will use it. Ben MacDui 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I fully support this article for promotion to FA. I have reviewed it with regard to all the FA criteria. I was particularly impressed with the high quality of the prose, and even more impressed with high standard of the sources used and cited; The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, National Trust for Scotland, The Scottish Office, among many more from highly reputable organisations. I am satisfied that all issues with the images used have been resolved and that their use is in full accordance with Wikipedia policies. I look forward to seeing this article on the Main Page. Graham Colm Talk 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Comments for now. This is an excellent, comprehensive, engaging and well written article. I have a few questions:[reply]

  • Can this be shortened, Included in the country's ocean inventory are the Darwin Mounds,?
Shortened to "The Darwin Mounds are an important area of deep sea cold water coral reefs discovered in 1988".
  • I would de-link United Kingdom.
Done
  • Here, ...more different species- is the "different" needed?
Nope and gone.
  • Here, In total these marine elements extend to an area of around 350 square kilometres (140 sq mi). - is the "In total" needed?
Nope and gone.
  • I noticed some discussion about this above but there is just one occurrence of cSAC and it's not defined.
Good point - I've removed the "c" as readers are probably not interested in the process of candidacy and acceptance. (There was earlier reference to this prior to the peer review/acceptance of the other cSACs.) It now reads "The Darwin Mounds, covering about 100 square kilometres (39 sq mi), are being considered as the first offshore SAC."
  • Here, a variety of factors is vague and useless.
It is certainly vague, and I have removed "'a variety of" but I think the "factors" needs to stay.
  • Amongst the Lagomorphs - "Of the lagomorphs".
Done

Please confirm that any issues with the images have been resolved; I can't add my support until this is done. Thanks for a brilliant article. Graham Colm Talk 13:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bot has looked at the adler and made a cryptic remark about a human needing to look at the image size, but unless I have completely misunderstood how the Flickr licence works there isn't likely to be a problem with this.
As I don't understand the problem with the Scots Pine I don't know if it is fixed. If the weather was not currently a shade grim I'd take a new picture. In the meantime I'll have another look at Commons.
New image now used with no licence problems that I can see. Ben MacDui 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your kind assessment, comments and support. Ben MacDui 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources were reviewed at the peer review, and while they aren't the best, they work for the information being presented. Links check out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your peer review support and comments. Ben MacDui 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I miss the bit about capercaillie being extinct but then reintroduced? Speaking of which, is it reintroduced or re-introduced? My high school teacher said the former.:-) Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the extinction and re-introduction were pre-20th century they missed out but I will add something asap to go with the jaunty image.
Your teacher was perhaps correct (if a shade pedantic). Strangely my 6 centimetres (2.4 in) thick dictionary fails to mention either. As wiktionary does not like the hyphen I will remove them. Ben MacDui 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. Ben MacDui 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is an imbalance in coverage of certain topics, dolphins (in the sea rather than mammal section) get poor coverage compared with mustelids, and some topics are covered more comprehensively than others (eels for instance get only a mention), but obviously that's totally inevitable. It merits becoming an FA, but as the topic is far from covered I'd hope this doesn't mean additions to the article cease. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. As ever, the question is what to leave out. A Bearded Seal visited the Isle of Mull lately, as did a Citril Finch to Fair Isle. The removal of rats from Canna and the precarious position of the Canna mouse will get a mention there soon, and maybe the latter here. Arion ater is a repulsive fellow, but may be deserving of attention here too. The forthcoming Marine Bill will doubtless prove interesting. I shall remain vigilant! Ben MacDui 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work. (I agree that the the new red deer image is the best so far). Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks and apologies about the weasel wording. I know I edited a change but I must have forgotten to save it. I'll check for any other omissions. Ben MacDui 07:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is certainly an engaging and well-written article, seems comprehensive to me, and makes a delicious read. It makes me want to visit Scotland. In the interest of full disclosure, I must say that I copyedited this article. On another read-through this evening, I saw that the prose had survived my tinkering and was still delicious. I confess to tinkering a bit more on this latest pass, but it didn't amount to much. The images seem better now than they did before, and it appears from the discussion above that the license questions have been resolved. I looked at the licenses again and saw nothing amiss. (This is not, however, my strong suit.) When I grow up, I want to be a Whiskered Bat if not a Tawny Owl. Finetooth (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again for your support and efforts - it made all the difference. Can I suggest that you come up with a firm vision? I'd hate to see you turn into an owl with no feathers or a bat that hoots. Ben MacDui 07:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, see WP:MSH. Two sections with the same name (Extinctions); editing won't return to correct section, and sections should have distinct names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting this - fixed. Ben MacDui 07:55, 10 September 2008 (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/Fauna_of_Scotland&oldid=1144176085"