Wikipedia:Peer review/Puerto Rican Amazon/archive1

Puerto Rican Amazon edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review as a logical step in the march towards Featured Article status. The current content is product of a collaboration between several users from multiple WikiProjects (WP:PUR and WP:BIRDS in particular) our goal is to move towards FAC soon, but for that we will need help from the general community. Any issues noted here will be attended as presented, those dealing with prose, content or format are particulary welcomed. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is a high quality article which definitely has FA and main page potential. I have fixed a few typos. A detailed copyedit would be beneficial – punctuation in places is a little wayward, and there are a few awkwardly-phrased passages, but in general the article is in good shape.

A couple of general points: in the lead the "wild" population is given as between 30 and 35. Can a figure be provided for the population in captivity? Also, unless I missed it, there’s no mention of the species’ natural lifespan. That would be an interesting fact. - Figure and reference provided for the captive population.

Here are some specific points:

All geographical locations should be linked at first mention. - I believe they are, any obvious exemptions?
"Lack" should be explained at first mention - Added a link to David Lack, the article should be self-explanatory.
The "Population and distribution" section uses "hadn't" and "didn't", which should be written in full. In same section, do not capitalize after a semi-colon - Fixed.
"Accounts recorded in the early 1900s…" is followed closely by "In the early 20th century…"—two ways of describing the same period of time in successive sentences. This is one example of awkward prose. - Reworded, how does it look now?
What does "range" mean in the sentence that begins: "The current range of the species…"? Does it mean that all the birds of the species are contained within a 16km² area? - More or less, see my response below.
A range between 30 and 35 is a bit to narrow to justify "anywhere between…" - Removed "anywhere".
The Diet section may be too over-detailed for the general reader. Also, a propos above, a range from 8 to 60 seconds is too wide to justify "normally" - Removed "normarlly"; as far as being overly detailed I'm not sure, its better safe than sorry.
In the Threats section you say the wild population is 44, whereas before it has twice been given as between 30-35 - Updated per this.
A sentence beginning "Arguably,…" must have a direct citation, as must a sentence beginning "It is believed…". Otherwise they read as opinion. - Reference added

In fact, I notice a general weakening of in-text citations in the latter parts of the article. The third para of Threats is uncited, and the final section Recovery plan has uncited material. - These paragraphs were just sourced, I'm looking for a reference to that first sentence.

"Other objectives included the establishment of two separate viable wild populations (500 or more individuals for 5 years)…". I can’t work out what this objective actually amounted to. - Reworded, is it clear now?

I hope these points are of help to you. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and copy edit, I will need to retrieve the book but should attend these issues tommorow. Now as far as the range goes, all wild Amazons are indeed limited to a very reduced habitat, unless we include those living in breeding facilities then the range is correct. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it, please note that my comments will be written in bold text. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Current ref 5 (Conservation Management Institute) has the publisher in the link title, should be outside of the linked title. Also should say it's a pdf - Corrected; the reference isn't actually a pdf, it seems to be using some unusual format.
- Link or don't link access dates, but be consistent. - Fixed

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)