Wikipedia:Peer review/Arctic Tern/archive1

Arctic Tern[edit]

I am trying to make this a featured article. Please give any suggestions for improvement (outside of the short lead; I already know about that) so this can article be made better. Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand it, for a potential FAC it is much too short. Also, the lovely images seem oddly placed; look into varying their placement, and avoid aligning any pictures with the TOC. -Fsotrain₀₉ 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lengthened the lead section and added a section on appearances on stamps. Please explain which images you think are oddly placed. I could move one image further down although it would have little to do with those sections. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the article again, the image placement seems fine now. Sorry if I frustrated you. Perhaps the three redlinks could be dealt with? Either create stubs, or black them. Nice expansion work. -Fsotrain₀₉ 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a stub for the Antarctic Tern. I also fixed the links to egg and courtship. I'll be busy soon, but I'll be able to create a stub for Kerguelen Tern on Sunday. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found time today and created a stub for Kerguelen Tern. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, I put some lines + a ref on phylogenetic relationships in; the Antarctic spp. actually the closest relatives (not the N Hemisphere species). So there they are and not redlinked too! Dysmorodrepanis 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the request for a review, and I like the article. Some quick thoughts, there are maybe a few to many inline citations in the description, and it needs some expansion. Article length isn't a problem for FAC, but there is some information here that can be expanded on. I am willing to help - I have a subscription to BNA and can access some journals - and I just looove seabirds. I'll do some reading tonight. BTW, leaving a note in the talk page of Wikiproject Birds would have drawn this to the attention of interested people (like myself) to come and help. Good luck! Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the notes in the "Pysical description" section. Is this better? Please let me know which areas or sections you feel need expansion. And thank you for your offer of assistance. I need it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The physical description section is much better. I'm still working out what needs to be expanded; as I do I'll either let you know or add it in myself. The conservation section is certainly one area for which more information exists, and I can probably get more information on specific prey species (both in the summer and wintering grounds)Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a taxonomy section? I had earlier included one, but it was taken out because it just duplicated the taxobox. Now, there is an inline cite in the lead. FAC voters generally dislike cites in the lead, so if there is anyway out of having a cite in the lead I'd like to do it. I think that including that, and perhaps restoring the rest of the taxonomy section would be best, but there might be alternatives. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not a section per se but change 'physical description' to 'description and taxonomy'. The physical description section already compares the species to its relatives, so simply expand using Dysmorodrepanis' papers and kill two birds with one stone. Then cite there. Maybe.

I have expanded some more, btw, and will try and do more soon. Busy busy busy. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the "Physical description" section to a "Physical description and taxonomy" section and followed your suggestion. I also fixed a few typos, punctuation errors and changed the inline references to all use cite web/cite book whenever possible. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]