Wikipedia:Peer review/Ivory-billed Woodpecker/archive1
This article recently passed GA. This peer review request is now posted, as a logical next step towards hopefully attaining FA status. All & any comments appreciated SP-KP 07:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Copied here:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
- Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
- OK, fixed. SP-KP 16:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
- Fixed too - might be sensible for someone else to check this though SP-KP 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under WP:IUP and WP:IT that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[2]
- Not quite accurate, the taxobox has a painting - and the chances of us finding an Ivorybill photo are not high. What about photos of habitat, Tanner, etc? SP-KP 16:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Some image sources include the commons page on the species (which has some paintings) [1], and the Cashe River NWR Site [2] where the species was rediscovered (images of habitat and of the hoopla that surrounded rediscovery). Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite accurate, the taxobox has a painting - and the chances of us finding an Ivorybill photo are not high. What about photos of habitat, Tanner, etc? SP-KP 16:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[3]
- Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
- Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
- Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[5]
- Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
- Does this refer to "Other facts"? If so, why don't we call it "Ivory-billed Woodpecker in popular culture"? SP-KP 16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[6]
- Done already? SP-KP 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
Allpigs are pink, so we thought ofa number ofways to turn them green.”
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
- As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [8]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- A few notes (more soon, but today has been super busy).
- The intro is lopsided, almost all of it is about the rediscovery.
- The biology section is unreferenced. It is also worth noting strongly that much of the biology of this species is conjecture or extrapolation from a few scattered observations. The species was studied by very few people before it vanished.
- Almost no mention is made of the Cuban population - which lasted into the eighties if I recall. The Cuban Ivory-bill was a separate subspecies.
- I'll try and help some later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Those big quote sections with the blue quote marks, which were added after the GA status was approved, are really distracting. They generally get pinged on during a FA canidacy. I'd at least remove the blue quotes. Italics may work and large quotes are sometimes suitable for wikisource. Rlevse 09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree there are way too much quotes inside the "possible rediscovery" section
- "Breeding biology" is only one paragraph. It should probably be expanded in a "behavior" section, or somethig similar.
- A distribution map, if relevant would be an asset.
- Looks to me like many level 2 headers should be combined under a larger "history" section.