Talk:Crested auklet/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

- Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article! I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you! I added more to this introduction section. I tried to follow the format seen in other Good Articles for the bird section. Please let me know if there is anything additional that you think should be added. Samara levine (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC) - I added a taxonomy section. Please review. Samara levine (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I moved around this material. Please review Samara levine (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I added to the description section Samara levine (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC) - I added some material in the habitat section regarding this. The original information was added by someone else, so I am only adding what I found from my sources. Samara levine (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC) My contributions have all been with in-line citations. I'm not sure how to deal with the references that I didn't add. Samara levine (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I didn't provide this reference. Should it be deleted?Samara levine (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll review this article in depth very soon, but from first glance, there would need to be a longer intro, which summarises the entire article.
 * The article needs a taxonomy section.
 * Much of the descriptive material on ornaments should logically be placed in the description section.
 * I don't see a general description of the bird. What's the colour of the eyes, legs, body? No mention of the eye stripe? And how does the juvenile look?
 * There could be a habitat/distribution section.
 * Which kind of Herring Gull is meant?
 * A bit more on ecology could be expected. Why are its predators mentioned under diet? The intro states it lives in colonies with a relative, this should be elaborated in the article (there should never be info in the intro not found in the article body). What other birds does it live alongside?
 * You're mixing citation styles, you should make them uniform and only use in line citations.
 * "National Geographic" Field Guide to the Birds of North America needs an author. A few citations need year of publication.
 * The article lacks images, I can see there are many on Commons: A few more on Flickr:
 * It is always good to have a citation at the end of every paragraph.I can see you have several unsourced paragraphs.
 * Write "up to one million individuals" rather than ">1 million individuals".
 * That's about it from me. Looking forward to seeing a finished article! FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi FunkMonk! Thank you for your comments! My classmate Samara contributed a great deal to this entry! We are both students in a behavioral ecology class in college and are new to editing Wikipedia. We will do our best to get to all the comments as soon as possible. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice! Take your time, there's no rush from my side at least. FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A thing I missed first time around is that in the section titles, only the first letter should be capitalised. Unless the name of the bird is in the title, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * done --Cobiorower (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)conbiorower
 * It's getting much better, keep it up this way! FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the changes and let me know! Thank you! Samara levine (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you gotten the chance to take another look? Additional feedback would be appreciated! Samara levine (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'm back. New additions look good. As for citations that were there before you started editing, the best thing would probably just to make them match what you have done. For example, the book with no author could easily be fixed by Googling the title. But of course, if you don't know which statements each reference refers to, that's problematic. If you've added sources to all statements in the article itself, you can just put those extra refs in a "further reading" section or delete them. You still have some paragraph with no citation after them, each paragraph should ideally be sourced. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I added citations to the end of paragraphs that were lacking them! I am not sure what those sources were specifically referencing, so I added them under a further reading section. How does it look? Once again, I appreciate all your constructive criticism- it's really helpful particularly since I am a new editor of Wikipedia! Samara levine (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking good! As for more references for fleshing out, you can maybe look here: FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To recap, the article looks good now, but could need some more on non-breeding behaviour, taxonomy and habitat. When you're done, the intro could be a bit longer, since these should summarise the entire article. The following line needs a source: "This hypothesis may apply since ornaments may be recognizable by predators or may hinder the escape of the individual." FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No edits to the article since Funk's point above; should it be failed? Wizardman  19:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps? Personally, I'm willing to give it some more time. It should probably be put on hold in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This GAN was submitted as part of course work for a fall-semester class at Washington University in St. Louis. The class ended in December, and a new semester began a week ago. As the submitter has not edited on Wikipedia since December 20, I don't think this article is likely to be revisited. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of the articles in the class that were incomplete were submitted for GA. I am currently working through the articles and trying to address the GA reviews.  Because there are many of these articles it may take me a few weeks to reach this one but I intend to get to it eventually.  Gabriel.hassler (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They might never return then? So there's probably no other option than failing... FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I intend to finish up the article and get it to GA. I'll be working on it over the next few days until its done.Gabriel.hassler (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah nice, I won't fail it then. I've kind of lost my overview, so I'll ask for a second opinion. And one thing, bird names are always capitalised on Wikipedia, so you don't have to change them. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my lengthy absence! I just took the MCAT and was really trying to focus on that for the past month. I am committed to revising the article as soon as I can! I'm sorry again. Samara levine (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem for me personally, I just didn't know whether it had simply been abandoned! FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extra comments below, Chiswick Chap! As for my own, everything is solved, apart from some citations needing year, and the intro being longer (should be a summary of the entire article). FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion comments
* "This behavior has been described as underwater "flight"." Why?
 * Books should be listed consistently, with missing details supplied. Suggest Doe, John (2013). Title of Book, Publisher.
 * Addressed this Samara levine (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a singular/plural inconsistency: "The Crested Auklet is... They have..." Choose one.
 * "On a daily basis, crested auklets circle, 500 meters above, the sea and the breeding colonies, triggered by predators and disturbances." What? Does this mean "in huge numbers" or something? There's something wrong with the commas in the sentence, too.
 * I tried to clarify this. Is it clearer now? Samara levine (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "adults show a high degree of site fidelity within a year." So they nest repeatedly in a single year? What does this mean?
 * "Their communicative behavior is more complex and diversified than that of closely related species." Does this mean other Auklets, other Auks, or what?
 * "From studies, it seems to be a survival neutral ornament." Please put this into English. The paragraph uses "study/studies" 3 times, far too often. Please talk about what it means for the birds, not the research.
 * "Their main predators are gulls, Arctic fox and Common Ravens." They means the rats or the auklets?
 * I've done a little copy-editing.
 * Overall, the article looks acceptable once these details have been sorted out . Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's much better. From my side, the article is looking good and I hope it will be accepted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'll pass once the intro is made longer, and summarises the article. It would also be nice if all citations had years. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've extended the lead a bit to cover the article's subjects, as it doesn't seem anyone else felt like doing it! Also formatted date in one ref, and mended broken dates in two others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, well then I can't really do anything but pass it! FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: