Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Markham's storm petrel/archive2

< 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2024 [1].

Markham's storm petrel edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), Jens Lallensack (talk), Therapyisgood (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was first FAC nominated by Therapyisgood last year, who withdrew it, but with their blessing, I and Jens Lallensack have since worked on it because it was a shame to let the good work go to waste. It has been greatly expanded based on additional sources and more images have been found, so we now think it's ready for a renomination. FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • All three maps would benefit from being scaled up
Maps have been upscaled. FunkMonk (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Great to see this here.

  • Uncited quote in the lead. Per WP:LEADCITE: 'The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.'
Added citation. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it was classified as Near Threatened in 2019" By whom? I'm guessing IUCN, but from the sentence a reader might guess it was a Chilean body.
  • 'Conspecific' needn't mean 'biologically identical'. It just means a member of the same species; it might still be biologically distinct (e.g., the populations might be different subspecies).
Changed to "to be the same species as". FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is nested within Oceanodroma" Is 'nested' jargon? I understand it; other readers might not!
Changed to "grouped within". FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a very strong opinion on this, but my sense is that the general opinion at FAC is that {{Interlanguage link}} is discouraged; why would a reader assume that [fr] means 'click here to read about this in French'? (This is especially the case when we have an English language article.)
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their distribution was positively associated with features such as mean temperature of the wettest quarter and of the driest quarter, and solar radiation" This is a little technical.
The source is poorly written and quite hard to understand. I think me misinterpreted this part, and that sentence has actually nothing to do with the genetic clades. I therefore removed it. It is discussed in the paragraph on climate change in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like other storm petrels, Markham's storm petrel is" A bit of a singular/plural shift here (also in next paragraph), but it might not be an issue.
I can not yet see what you mean, could you explain? We always use "Markham's storm petrel" in singular as far as I see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. My mistake. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Ecuador, as of 2018, the species is classified as Near Endangered." Could you name the agency or body that is assigning the classification? (The Ecuadorian Endangered Species Commission or whatever?)
Added. Also provided a better link.
  • Is 'garbage' slang? It's very ugly to my (British) ears, but if it's considered formal in American English, so be it!
The source (Barros, 2019, and repeated by the IUCN) says "garbage" several times, so I'm not sure what to do, other than trying to find some synonym? FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'refuse', perhaps? But I'm not going to insist on it. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reads really well. I've not looked closely at sources or images. Please double-check my edits, which will (hopefully) be non-controversial. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Many thanks for your helpful comments. They should all be addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, assuming no sourcing or image issues are identified. This article compares well with other FA-quality articles about bird species. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Femke edit

  • For accessibility, please add {{lang}} constructions where non-English words are used. Screen readers will then know how to pronounce it. For instance for Pampa de Chaca
I tried. I was not always sure, however, for which cases these are appropriate and for which they are not. I tagged all colony names accordingly, at least. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having reread the MOS:FORITA, it seems a few "italics=no" need to be added, as the Spanish terms are all proper names. It's appropriate when the terms are uncommon in English, for instance if they're not found in an English dictionary. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the lead it quite difficult.
    • I don't think a type specimen belongs in the lead, as it's overly technical (per WP:EXPLAINLEAD).
I think it's necessary to state what the common name means in the intro, but since it is named for a person because he collected the type specimen, I'm unsure how we can avoid mentioning that without it looking like an oversight? FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, conspecific is unnecessary, one can just say, belongs to the same species as.
Changed to "to be the same species as". FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe even the name of the family in the first sentence is unnecessary jargon; this information is already available in the infobox for bird experts.
Mentioning the family in the intro is standard for animal FACs, though, and infoboxes are sometimes collapsed on phones by default. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to solve this by moving the family name out of the first sentence and adding the common name "northern storm petrels" for it. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saltpeter is an unfamiliar term. Is it possible to give context as to what this is in the lead and body?
Added "salt crusts rich in nitrates" as explanation. There are two types of saltpeter (potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate), and it seems that both are minded to some degree. I therefore decided to keep it general, and removed the link to the potassium nitrate article we had previously. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • cephalopods --> difficult word, would help if you give some examples of which cephalopod they eat.
I re-wrote the entire lead now, which should hopefully fix all these issues, and more. Let me know how this looks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a gorgeous rewrite!! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph on the effects of climate change, can you explain how their nests would become unsuitable due to CC?
A very good question, but the cited study does not address it. They simply determined which environmental variables can predict the current location of the colonies. They then used climate models to predict how these variables (all related to min, max, or mean temperatures in different parts of the year) will change in the future. However, they do not say why these temperature changes make the habitat unsuitable, and that's a bit frustrating. I added "changes in temperature" to the text, but we do not seem to have any more explanation to add, unfortunately (unless, maybe, we look at other papers, but then we need to by careful with WP:Synth I guess). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These birds may venture as far north as southern Mexico --> "The birds .. " sounds better to my ears.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tried with 58,000, if that makes sense?
Yes, it does :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Femke: – Thank you very much for your review! All should be addressed now. If you have any more, please let us know! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close to supporting. Two final comments

  • Is singly jargon for alone?
Changed to "alone". FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In molecular phylogenetic studies published in 2004 and 2017 the genus Oceanodroma was found to be paraphyletic (not a natural group), as the European storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) is grouped within Oceanodroma --> It took me a few minutes to understand this sentence, despite being able to guess what each invidiual words meant. I think my confusion is with the words "nested in" or "grouped in", as the problem is that the species is not grouped within the genus, but should be based on biology. Spelling out what paraphyletic is should make it easier, but still . Maybe something like this: "In molecular phylogenetic studies published in 2004 and 2017 the genus Oceanodroma was found to be paraphyletic, a grouping that includes some but not all descendants of a common ancestor; This was because the European storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) was missing." Not as elegant as the rest of the text, but should hopefully be more clear? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried my best to reformulate this to be easier to understand: In 2004 and 2017, genetic analyses found that the genus Oceanodroma must be merged with the genus Hydrobates, because the only member of the latter, the European storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus), was found to be nested within Oceanodroma (i.e., some species of Oceanodroma are more closely related to the European storm petrel than to some other members of Oceanodroma). What do you think? Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes complete sense :) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grungaloo edit

I'm just reviewing prose/style, AGF on sources.

  • Distribution map - should use a colour square to denote non-breeding range rather than the word (see Snowy plover). Also you can drop "Description: ".
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near Threatened" in the lead doesn't need to be capitalized.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a British explorer and naval officer who collected the type specimen off Peru." - "off the coast of Peru" or "at sea near Peru".
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Markham's storm petrel was subsequently for many years considered" - Move "subsequently" to the front of the sentence.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similarly, the ornithologist Reginald Wagstaffe considered Tristram's storm petrel a subspecies of Markham's storm petrel in 1972," - Move "in 1972" to after "Similarly" at the front of the sentence, otherwise it sounds like they were considered subspecies in 1972 only.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2004 and 2017, genetic analyses found that the genus" - This is a pretty complex sentence that's hard to follow. I'd recommend a rewrite to be more generally understandable. Also - is "must be merged" the right language? Since taxonomy is to a degree arbitrary, usually these are phrased as "should" and then generally accepted by the community.
Puh, this is already my attempt to write it as understandable as possible, per Femke's comment below. I improved it slightly, but I am not sure what else I can do here; phylogenetics is not easy. Could you could explain what specifically is not understandable? Regarding the "must": Yes, if a clade is nested within another one, the latter is paraphyletic, and therefore, per definition, not a natural group (clade). Consequently, if we assume that the genetic analyses are correct, it must be merged, it is not a matter of opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I saw Femke's comment after I posted this - apologies for piling it on! I'm striking this one, on a re-read I think it works and thank you for the clarification on the wording. grungaloo (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but this has not been followed by other authorities" - This seems to imply that some authorities do accept this, but it's not clear if that's correct or who they are. Could probably just drop "other".
clarified ("has not been followed by subsequent studies" is what we wanted to say). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A genetic analysis by Wallace and colleagues" - Who's Wallace? Can they be wikilinked, and if not do we need to list their name at all? Alternatively, shouldn't it be Wallace et al to more clearly indicate this was a published study?
Ok, removed, to be consistent with not providing author names. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with its eighteen[11] species" - MOS:CITEPUNCT, this ref should be at the end of the sentence.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in a characteristic three-colored pattern of the wing" - "three-colored pattern on the wing".
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From Leach's storm petrel, it differs in its more pronounced tail forking and its longer wings and larger size." - Run on sentence, need to split along one of those "ands".
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similar birds within its range include the..." - There's a decent MOS:REFCLUTTER at the end of this paragraph, and no cites throughout. I'm assuming this was the only way to stitch the info together in a way that flowed, but probably worth a second look to see if you can split those cites up somewhere within the paragraph itself.
WP:REFCLUTTER refers to too many citations; you instead seem to be concerned with the precision of their placement? The reason I put them in the end of the paragraph was that not all of them agree on all those observations. I tried to extract the least common denominator out of these sources, which is why I need to cite multiple sources for each sentence. Hope that makes sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks! My main concern was that four refs tagged to one paragraph raised a bit of a flag that maybe things could be restructured. Given that the rest of the article is well structured I figured it was just a necessity of the information you were working with, and just wanted to confirm. grungaloo (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adults in nests were found to vocalize when a recording of Markham's storm petrel vocalizations was played at the entrance." - Explain what "entrance" this is, nests aren't describe in this section so it's not clear what it's referring to. Could just write it as "the entrance of the nest cavity."
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Markham's storm petrel inhabits waters of the Humboldt Current in the Pacific Ocean off Ecuador, Peru, and northern Chile" - Only Ecuador is wikilinked here, for consistency wikilink all three countries, or none.
Removed wikilink.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A survey published in 2007 found that during austral autumn (the non-breeding season)," - I would drop "austral autumn" and just use the gloss.
I think it is important to mention though, also because "non-breeding season" is quite vague because this differs markedly from colony to colony. I removed the gloss, though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. grungaloo (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are typically located within 25 km to the sea" - "within 25 km of the sea". Also, 25km should have a convert to miles.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The egg is incubated by both parents in shifts of up to three days, during with the other partner is feeding at sea." - "during which the other partner"
Omg, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimated the population of Markham's storm petrel in 2019 as between..." - Four different estimates are listed here, three of them are IUCN listings of which a further 2 are historical counts. Do the historical IUCN estimates need to be listed - presumably they're superceded by the most recent estimate in 2019?
I tend to think that this information is interesting, as it shows how large the uncertainty is. Let's see what FunkMonk thinks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good for me either way. If it does stay, maybe consider calling out that they're old IUCN estimates, and you could write it so that it shows the changes over time. grungaloo (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in this case I think it's an important reflection of how little was known about this bird historically, and how recent much of its known population data really is. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near Threatened" doesn't need to be capitalized.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saltpeter mining directly destroyes nest holes" - destroys
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work overall! Ping me if you have questions about what I said. grungaloo (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Awesome article and thanks for the detailed replies! grungaloo (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the detailed review! I fixed the last outstanding minor points now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK edit

  • Nice to see birds at FAC so regularly; I made a minor c/e to correct what I saw as trivial errors, but feel free to revert and discuss any you disagree with here.
Yeah, let's try to keep that up, having regular bird FACs! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "without any nest material" I usually see this written "nesting material" in the literature.
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No professions mentioned for Boie and Reichenbach?
Now added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, all...Markham's storm petrel." Specify that the IOU, whose taxonomy we're following in this article, chose to do this. Otherwise, the contrast you raise in the next sentence, with the 2004 article following a different taxonomy, doesn't really make sense.
Added "which was accepted by the International Ornithologists' Union". FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of a 2017 study" Same study, so "of the 2017 study"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Markham's storm petrel is a member of the genus Hydrobates" You say that Hydrobates is the only genus, so is it really necessary to specify again that Markham's storm petrel is in said genus?
Rephrased. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "researcher Rodrigo Barros and colleagues" to "researcher Rodrigo Barros and his colleagues"
It's the common way of saying it (alternative to the more techical et al.). FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gloss allochronic speciation.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image showing habitat suitability is hard to understand; what exactly do the colors convey?
To be honest, I am a bit of a loss here. The paper is poorly written, and the text does not even refer to the figure, apparently. So they didn't publish a legend (as far as I can see). I would guess that purple colors (close to 1) indicate habitat suitability and lower numbers (close to 0) indicate less suitable habitat. But if we are not sure, I would now even consider removing that image entirely. Let's see if FunkMonk has an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also assume 1 is suitable and 0 is unsuitable, would also match with the yellow areas being in the periphery of habitats in both versions. Blue is always at the centre. I've added that to the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: After yet another look, I still don't know what exactly the scale from 0 to 1 means. I fear that if we guess, we likely get it wrong. I now think that we should just remove those diagrams. Maybe we can add Fig. 5 of the paper instead, which has a legend at least? Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend removing it; at thumbnail size, it's almost impossible to see differences between each of the cases anyway. AryKun (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think about fig. 5 here[2] as replacement, @AryKun:? FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit odd-looking since they keep switching the underlying map, but better than the current map I suppose. AryKun (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added that map, caption could perhaps need some work. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really all I have, excellent work! AryKun (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, the IOC list ref could be updated to 14.1, and the archived version should also be updated. AryKun (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is there a 14.1 version for petrels? The current petrel page[3] seems to be 13.2. Can't say I know much about the sites workings, though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC isn't going to finish updating all of the pages until March apparently. Support from me then. AryKun (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 20 upper edit

  • The bird is named in honor => The bird is named after. No need for the word "honor"
Changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who collected the specimen that in 1883 led to the scientific description of the species. Needs better phrasing
Improved. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with a wingspan between 49 and 54 cm (19 and 21 in). => with a wingspan of 49 to 54 cm (19 and 21 in). 
Any reason why your wording is better than the existing one? I don't see it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems more natural to me, but no need to fight over small issues like this. 20 upper (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remove The ornithologist in all instances. I don't think it's important to point this out.
There are different opinions here at FAC whether or not such information should be given. I agree that "ornithologist" is not a particularly exiting information (but still helps for context), but we also have the "British explorer and naval officer", so we should give occupation for the others too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then that should be removed as well. 20 upper (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most bird articles use these kind of occupations mentioned, because otherwise you end up with a bunch of scientists being mentioned with no context as to who they are. AryKun (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah – for the understanding of the paragraph, it is important to know whether the mentioned person is a naval officer or a scientist. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • fresh plumage is all-black => fresh plumage is black
Ok, changed, probably better.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With wear, the plumage becomes browner overall. Doesn't sound right, suggest rephrasing
What does not sound right here? I do not see the issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd to start any sentence with "With wear". 20 upper (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really in this context. AryKun (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and as far west as 118°W. As far west as which place?
No place that is of importance for the bird (it is somewhere in the Pacific). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader, we would want to know what that place is and why they are going there. 20 upper (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They go there because it's their habitat. I am not sure what you want us to add here, please elaborate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What island/land is this? Cause I know for a fact that they don't directly live in the Pacific Ocean. If it's not that important, you can remove it. 20 upper (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do indeed directly live in the Pacific Ocean, as stated in the article. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but they do come ashore for breeding. 20 upper (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, some pairs will begin breeding much earlier than others => However, some pairs will begin breeding much earlier
This information is important, otherwise the reader will ask "earlier than what?". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. 20 upper (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predators of adults probably include larger birds such as skuas and large gulls. Probably => may
This changes the meaning. We need the "probable" to indicate uncertainty in this assumption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional research is crucial for effective conservation efforts. Doesn't fit well in a species article, please remove.
I think it is an important point to make in the context of conservation, because the bird is so poorly known: Colonies can't be protected as long as their location is not known, for example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not needed; what value would a reader find in this? 20 upper (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the sources emphasize this point for this particular species, and there is no good reason to not mention it here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Good job on the article. 20 upper (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all. 20 upper (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Addressed" means responded; whether you agree with them is your call, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good now. 20 upper (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spot-check upon request; I imagine that the varying source formats are due to the various sources having different available information. There may be more usable sources at this page. Is Robert Cushman Murphy Robert Cushman Murphy? Do darwinfoundation.org/ and birdsoftheworld.org have an editorial staff somewhere? I think Princeton university press is written in all uppercase. Do these three newspapers and Sarah Gilman have a reputation for reliability? I don't have much familiarity with the reliability of Peruvian newspapers. Castillo de Mar uenda probably has an excess space. Some of the Spanish sources could be linked to SciELo, e.g Breeding of Markham's Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma markhami, Aves: Hydrobatidae) in the desert of northern Chile. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of the World is run by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and is essentially an updated, digitized version of Handbook of the Birds of the World. Each species account is a peer-reviewed scientific publication. AryKun (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Added one paper we missed, but FunkMonk wants to have another look. Did the small fixes you suggest (author-link, uppercase etc.). Removed the newspapers; while I think that newspapers generally count as reliable sources especially for uncontroversial information, they may not really be representative for the complete picture. The Atlantic is a well-known and reliable source, regardless who the author is. The Darwin Foundation is only cited for the fact that the species is listed as threatened. Regarding the SciElo, the url field is already occupied, and there does not seem to be a dedicated parameter in the cite journal template just for SciElo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added another paper. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (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/Markham%27s_storm_petrel/archive2&oldid=1211015397"