Wikipedia:Peer review/Procellariidae/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Procellariidae[edit]

Following on from albatross, another family of seabirds I think can reach FA status. Hopefully you'll find it informative well referenced and illustarted, and hopefully you'll find everything that's wrong with it now so I can correct it before FAC. Just a word of warning; for reasons that are too complicated to go into yet actually make perfect sense, I can only access the internet between 800-1030 in the evening Hawaiian time. I will reply to comments, but allow for the time lag. Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some initial comments/questions from me. More to come on a second read-through no doubt:

General comments

  • I'd like to see lots more inline references for specific facts
  • Check spelling of procellarid/iid consistent & correct throughout
  • Link species names in picture captions where appropriate
  • I'll deal with this.
  • Sort out the redlinks
  • Any general topic headings which we included in the Albatross article which aren't covered here?
  • Yes, culture. Quite frankly I'm hard pressed to find any examples of procellariids in a cultural context. They just don't grab people the way albatrosses or penguins or puffins do. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Paragraph 1 - Procellaridae is (or perhaps even better comprises, although then we'd have two uses of comprise), but not are - grammatical hobbyhorse of mine, sorry
  • Feel free to try and reword it, dyslexia makes grammer a different country to me.Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 1 - do all members of the family fall into one of those four subgroups?
  • Yes no maybe. Long answer - probably, the four group thing kind of works but is a human way of understanding something more complex. There is some controversy about whether some species belong where. Pseudobulweria behaves like a gadfly petrel, for example, but is probably closer to the shearwaters genetically. This could be made clearer in the section on taxonomy, I conceed, but probably does not need to be dealt with in the intro. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 1 - wikilink order
Sorry. What I meant was - can we wikilink the word "order" to "order (biology)" SP-KP 08:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2 - can we back up the statement about the family being the most diverse?
  • I was refering to the diversity in lifestyles, large carrion eaters and small filter feeders and ariel snatchers and deep divers. Compared to the three other families this is much more diverse. I have no idea how you'd cite that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2 - are the characterising characteristics diagnostic of this family?
  • Gah. Probably - though as I said in the talk page that section is left over from he original article that I started on. Interestingly Schrieber and Burger describe the Procellariidae as 'Being distinguished from the other three families by lacking their charecteristics', a supremeley helpful statement. ;P Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2 - Septum links to a disambig page
  • fixed
  • Paragraph 2 - "all species lay a single egg" ...? Recipe for extinction if you ask me :-)
  • fixed
  • Paragraph 2 - exceptionally long for all procedllarids compared with?
  • clarified
  • Paragraph 3 - repeat use of exceptionally too soon? also this sentence could be punctuated better
  • reworded
  • Paragraph 3 - species repeat use - and can we do better than "introduced species" - how about introudced mammals or are we not just talking mammals here?
  • mammals and plants - though mammals are the worst for sure. The repetition doesn't bother me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy / evolution

  • Paragraph 1 - how about spelling out C-T?
  • kay.
  • Paragraph 1 - Is there universal agreeement on S&A's findings on origins? If so great, but what about some historical perspective; if not, then let's see alternative views
  • no, of course not. Perhaps the page on Procellariformes is the best place for a discussion on the various theories and timelines. The order of the split is backed up, however, by Nunn and Stanley's 1998 paper, which I used to restructure the taxonomy section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 1 - How close in time were the four family splits - procellarids split most recently but was that 29.9 MYA or ... ?
  • jeez. I don't have that book with me anymore. I'll try and find out elsewhere.Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 1 - could you say when the Oligo & Miocenes were for ignoramuses like me
  • Paragraph 2 - in the lead we just said fulmars but here we say fulmarine petrels - internal consistency needed
  • fixed
  • Paragraphs 2 onwards - subsection headings for each of the four subgroups maybe
  • I'd prefer not to - the Prion section is very small and the others aren't huge. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3 - small to medium size, can we be more precise
  • Paragraph 3 - not all gadfly petrels are uniformly black are they e.g. Fea's
  • fixed
  • Paragraph 3 - some experts assert ... - can we be more specific
  • I do, in the bottom paragraph
  • Paragraph 3 - not enough work ... POV
  • POV? It's just a way of saying that the definitive treatment on the genus has not been done.
  • Paragraph 4 - "large bills filed WITH lamellae" ?
  • quite
  • Paragraph 4 - perhaps a comma between grey & patterned?
  • done
  • Paragraph 5 - and should be an
  • don't follow?
  • Paragraph 5 - which species got down to 70m
dealt with further on in the article in two placesSabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 5 - perhaps say that Procellarias aren't usually called by the name shearwater
  • Done
  • Paragraph 6 - a recent WHAT splits?
  • Paragraph 6 - not completely sure I can follow the story re: Puffins/Neonectris origins
  • Paragraph 6 - the two genera, Pseudo... comma is rogue
  • Paragraph 6 - don't the comments about the subgroups of Pterodroma belong in the gadfly petrel paragraph, and can we expand them?
  • I can probably expand them but I was presenting all the newer developments in the last paragraph. I'd appreciate thoughts on how to restructure the whole of this section if it can be done better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC) - UPDATE - Changed my mind and agree with you - done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 6 - the last sentence would fit well in the lead IMO

Morphology & flight

  • What's a "patchy area of prey"?
  • clarified
  • the soaring types can be wikilinked I think?
clarified
  • is it just the giant petrels that have the shoulder lock?
yes, hopefully clarified

Distribution and range

  • od -> of
  • fixed
  • undertake transequatorial WHAT
  • fixed
  • expermiments typo
  • fixed
  • have there been multiple disp experiments - which other species?
  • Possibly, I'll have to hunt and look.

Diet

  • sentences containing "In conjunction with" anmd "Wedge-tailed Shear" don't quite read right to me
  • here we say only three of the six prions have lamellae - didn't it say all above?
  • quite right - I worte the six bit before I found out onlty three of them have them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • conjenction typo
  • fixeed
  • TRopical typo
  • fixed

Breeding

  • 1st para - can we give examples of inland/montane breeders
  • example provided
  • 3rd para - appears to conradict itself in the first & third sentences - do the majority breed above or under ground?
  • no, I've clarified. Open ground refered to the habitat, not the location. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • lattitudes typo x2
  • corrected
  • Sentence with "Procellarids that" - punctuate better?

Mate & site fidelity

  • seveal, streches typos
  • fixed
  • "most for species" doesn't quite read right
  • what's billing?
explained, hopefully)

breeding season

  • same comment as per lead re: single egg
  • clarified
  • procellarids chicks - rogue s
  • removed

exploitation

  • strictly speaking "BP" shouldn't be used in WP articles, even though I dislike the alternatives
  • huh? Okay, I changed it to years ago (even though it sounds like a story now)
I need to explain this in a bit more detail, and possibly backtrack. Basically, in a guideline somewhere (so I'm told) it says that all dates should be absolute not relative, so that if an article isn't edited for 100 years, it's still accurate. I think this is mainly intended as a guideline for avoiding things like "recently", "in the last month" etc. so maybe BP is OK, in fact. I'll try to track down the exact page and see what it actually says! SP-KP 08:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a preference for "become extinct" over "go extinct" as I think it reads better - could be just me though
  • I think I prefer gone extinct myself.
  • shearwtaer typo
  • fixed

threats

  • what does "ecologically naive" mean?
  • ", or , more commonly" - rogue space
  • fixed
  • easily stage shoul say early stage
  • fixed

Species

  • Puting the list elsewhere is good given the length of it but can we put any summarising facts in this section?
Nothing springs to mind that isn't repeating what's already there. I'll think about it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind, agree with you, done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links

  • a brief comment against each would be good

SP-KP 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeexcellent. Good eye there SP-KP. I've begun to fix what's wrong, I'll do some more after dinner. Thanks muchly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've fixed most everything. A few points need thinking about (I need to work out what to do), and I'd suggest that other people help with where my ability to insert commas falls down. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick replies on a couple of things above. SP-KP 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I have added some more citations and clarified some more things. In particular I have beaten the taxonomy section with a hose and added a rough cladogram to try and show where the genera fall in modern thinking. Hopefully this has imporved matters some. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I have dealt with the points raised, although two instances of recently have been left in as they refer to longer periods of time ('the storm petrels split, and more recently the procellariids') which won't date. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Procellariidae/archive1&oldid=192524207"