Talk:Flagship species/GA1

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

Reviewer: Basilosauridae (talk · contribs) 03:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I'll be reviewing this article. My goal is to collaboratively work towards the best article possible. I might make a few minor grammatical changes during the review, but nothing that effects content. If you don't agree with all my thoughts and suggestions, I'm happy to discuss. I'll update this page with a review shortly. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  03:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Formatting, Structure, Wikipedia Conventions
♦ This article has some layout issues that I think can easily be resolved:
 * Chosen species and selection should be combined, as they speak to basically the same aspect of the topic. I would combine both under the heading of “selection”. “Limitations” could be listed as a sub-section within.
 * Change the title of “other types of conservation flagship” to “Variations” or something similar. Saying “of conservation flagship” is redundant, as it is the subject of the article.
 * Organize as:
 * Definitions
 * History
 * Selection
 * Variations
 * See also/rest of sections in order they are now

♦ Maybe the first image isn’t the strongest image for the lead? I agree it belongs in the article, but maybe an image of a panda or snow leopard might be more recognizable and understandable for readers in the lead? My eye was drawn to the name of the conservation project, not the image of the monkey, and it lead me to believe for a second that this article was about something specific to that project and not a broader concept. Maybe swap spots with the cut-out lion picture below? From WP:LEAD: “It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page”


 * Done, and please don't quote policy at me!

Content & Writing Style
♦ First sentence, lead: “a flagship species is a species chosen to raise support for biodiversity conservation in a chosen place or context.”
 * Uses the word “chosen” twice, the lead uses a version of the word “chose” 5 more times, some of these times could be substituted for other vocabulary to improve writing style.

Fixed.


 * What is meant by “context”? Maybe a more specific word would be better here.
 * Said social context.

♦ Lead, second sentence: “Definitions have varied, but they have tended to focus on the strategic and socio-economic character of the concept, to support the marketing of a conservation effort”
 * What is meant by “strategic and socio-economic character of the concept”? Could this sentence be made more accessible to a wide audience?
 * Said strategic goals.

♦ Lead, second paragraph: “Species chosen since the 1980s…”
 * For clarify, should include some information on why the 1980’s is a significant benchmark. For example: “Species chosen since the rise in popularity of the flagship species concept in the 1980s have included widely recognizable and charismatic…”
 * Said that's when it started.

♦ Lead, third paragraph: Utilizing a flagship species has limitations. It can skew management and conservation priorities; these may conflict; and loss of the flagship species can negatively affect stakeholders.”
 * I would change the sentence to ”Utilizing a flagship species has limitations. It can skew management and conservation priorities, potentially causing them to conflict.” I’m not sure the second half about stakeholders currently fits with the rest of the sentence. Maybe make a second sentence if you feel strongly about its inclusion; I think its fine without.
 * Tweaked.

♦ Lead, last line: “Ecologically, flagship species are sometimes also keystone species, those which like the African lion have an important controlling role in their ecosystems.”
 * While true, I don’t know if its significant enough to go in the lead, which would suggest to me that there is a large overlap between the two groups. I would moving to the “species chosen” section.
 * Cut.

♦ Last sentence, definitions: “This work relates to the biogeography of micro-organisms and uses particular species because "eyecatching "flagships" with conspicuous size and/or morphology are the best distribution indicators””
 * Little clunky, I would split this into two sentences. Additionally, I would add some language to clarify that you’re talking about how microbiology defines flagship species, making it appropriate for the definitions section. Maybe a sentence like “related fields, such as microbiology, have begun to incorporate and redefine the flagship species concept for their own work.” Alternatively, you could move it to the “other types of conservation flagship” section, which I actually think is the best place for it.
 * Moved.

♦ definitions section: Stylistically, I think the second paragraph and the first paragraph could be combine as shown below. Additionally, Maan Barua needs some sort of title near their name to explain why their thoughts on the subject are relevant.:


 * The term flagship is linked to the metaphor of representation. In its popular usage, flagships are viewed as ambassadors or icons for a conservation project or movement. Maan Barua noted that metaphors influence what people understand and how they act; that mammals are disproportionately chosen; and that biologists need to come to grips with language to improve the public's knowledge of conservation.[5] Several definitions have been advanced for the flagship species concept and for some time there has been confusion even in the academic literature.[1] Most of the latest definitions focus on the strategic, socio-economic, and marketing character of the concept.[1][2]


 * Done.

♦ Chosen species, paragraph 1: “Twenty-five biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities have been identified; these are places where a flagship species could be especially useful.”
 * The citation used, doesn’t actually say anything about flagship species, so I would say the second clause is WP:SYNTH. I question if this information is vital to the article; there doesn’t seem to be any further connection made between flagship species and biodiversity hotspots. Additionally, this journal is from 2000 and is from a scientific paper, so I question if it is current (as in, no other spots have been identified since then) and if it represents a general consensus in conservation.
 * Removed.

♦ Chosen species, paragraph 2: "Some flagship species are apex predators, like the African lion, which once had an important role as a keystone species: it used to control the populations of large herbivores, protecting ecosystems across the entire landscape".


 * The citations provided don't support that the African lion is no longer a keystone species or apex predator. Additionally, this sentence may be a little confusing for a reader that isn't familiar with biology, because it skips from apex predator to keystone species. I would recommend scrapping the apex predator part, and just talk about keystone species. I would recommend "Some flagship species are also keystone species, such as the African lion, which has an important role in controlling other local populations through predation and influences the entire community composition. However, the African lion is currently vulnerable, which diminishes its capacity to exert a control on its community."


 * Reworded.

♦ Chosen species, paragraph 2: "The WWF distinguishes flagship, keystone, and indicator species, those which act as a usefully measurable proxy for the health of an ecosystem or process within an ecosystem; it selects either a flagship or a keystone species as a "priority species" for its own purposes."
 * This is an operational definition for the WWF, and they say in the citation that it is solely for the purpose of internal planning and communications and doesn't reflect any general consensus in conservation biology. I think this whole sentence should be scrapped.


 * No reason why it should, and the sentence doesn't assert any such consensus; the WWF is a major conservation organisation, and its view is of encyclopedic interest. In particular the fact that flagship is just one candidate type for prioritisation is highly relevant here.

♦ Limitations, paragraph 2: I have some issues with this whole paragraph. For one, the "10 most charismatic groups" comes from the study that is cited, and may not reflect a general consensus in science. Additional sources should be provided to support that this has been accepted by conservation scientists. Additionally, I think most of this content is WP:UNDUE and could be reduced to something along the lines of "some researchers argue that utilizing flagship species leads the public to inaccurately associate the abundance of imagery in popular culture with the actual abundance of individuals in the wild, reducing concern for their conservation. It is also argued that flagship species leads to a disproportionate focus on charismatic species."
 * Said 'identified in a 2018 study'. Trimmed the text. We normally only invoke 'undue' for serious breaches that threaten to overwhelm articles.

Completeness of Subject Coverage
♦ There are areas that could be expanded upon or added. For example: has there been any notable success from utilizing a flagship species?


 * Added a couple to History.

♦ Selection section currently states "Flagship species can be selected according to many different characteristics depending on what is valued by the audience they try to target. This is best illustrated by the differences in recommendations made for flagship species selection targeting different target audiences such as local communities and tourists."
 * I think this could be expanded upon. What different characteristics are debated? What different recommendations are made?
 * Added instances of methodologies used and project goals to be met.

Quality of Citations
♦ No issues observed

Additional assessment questions

 * Does it have/need cleanup banners?
 * no


 * Does it contain original research?
 * One instance of synthesis, which was discussed above.


 * Does it contain plagiarism?
 * no


 * Is the information stable?
 * yes


 * Is it properly illustrated?
 * More or less. I commented above about my thoughts on the lead image. Personally, I would scatter the images in the little gallery throughout the article instead of group them all together, but its fine either way.


 * Done that.

Post changes discussion
looks good, the only remaining things I'd comment on are:

♦ History section should probably go above "Chosen species". Seems odd to put it in between "chosen species" and "limitations", as those sections flow pretty well together. I still think "Selection" is a better title for the "Chosen species" section, as it speaks more to the criteria of selection, but I won't be nitpicky about it.
 * Moved.

♦ regarding this sentence in "chosen species": "The WWF distinguishes flagship, keystone, and indicator species, those which act as a usefully measurable proxy for the health of an ecosystem or process within an ecosystem; it selects either a flagship or a keystone species as a "priority species" for its own purposes."
 * I question what the audience is learning about choosing a flagship species from this sentence. Maybe if you want to keep the content, something like this might be more relevant to this article:
 * "The WWF uses flagship species as one of its species classification categories, along with keystone species and indicator species. The WWF chooses between flagship and keystone species when assigning a priority species to represent the conservation threats facing a certain region."
 * Done.

♦ Since the line about the 25 biodiversity hotspots was cut, the picture of the hotspots should probably be removed. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  18:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * : Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)