Talk:Guano/GA1

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

I'll take on this, er, fascinating and important bat-related topic. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Astute of you to jump in so quickly and claim this hot topic before someone else could! Enwebb (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * I've mended some harv links and fixed some small typos.
 * thanks
 * Perhaps the N, P, K mention in the lead should say that these are the key nutrients for many crop plants. ✅
 * You mean beyond what it already says? ...due to its exceptionally high content of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium: nutrients essential for plant growth.
 * That'd be true of many trace elements also; NPK are the key nutrients required in quantity.
 * U.S. Supreme Court link needs disambiguation. ✅
 * done
 * The maps of Islands claimed by the U.S. need to be captioned with the act and its date. ✅
 * done
 * More wikilinking is needed in lead and body, e.g. British Empire, ecology/ecological, royalties, saltpeter. Perhaps Abolition of slavery, too. ✅
 * done
 * Several of the historical figures should be introduced with a brief gloss, e.g. 'the explorer and naturalist von Humboldt'. Basically every person should be introduced in some way at first appearance. ✅
 * done
 * I think that the redlinked minerals would be best explained with a brief gloss, as after all there's no link to follow for any other explanation. Alternatively you might want to create a list of phosphatic minerals (there's a suggestion I never thought I'd make) with a brief gloss of each one. ✅
 * Went ahead and created stubs for the three redlinked minerals
 * Thanks. Beyond the call of duty, obviously!


 * Re the above, why is Phosphorite relegated to See also? Has its production not helped to supplant guano mining? ✅
 * I'll be honest, the see also section is entirely original to before the revamp (I've only removed, not added). All the sources I've seen implicate the Haber-Bosch process as directly responsible for the decline in demand for guano. I have the digital version of Guano and the opening of the Pacific world: a global ecological history and "phosphorite" is not mentioned once in 415 pages. I think leaving it in the see also section is alright, but I'm open to including if I come across sources that say it is important in the decline of guano mining. Enwebb (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggest you say that caliche is a sedimentary rock (and wikilink that). ✅
 * done


 * A bestselling guano book, fancy. We'd best have its title, date, and publisher then! ✅


 * War of the Pacific needs dates. ✅
 * done


 * Could link migratory bats to animal migration. ✅
 * done


 * Work conditions - you briefly mention dust inhalation and mechanical hazards from the 19th century; since work continues today, what health and safety precautions are taken? Probably deserves a paragraph or short section. ✅


 * Re the above, I see histoplasmosis under See also. Perhaps it deserves inclusion in the H&S paragraph. Other diseases to mention? ✅
 * A whole new section!
 * Thanks, that's much better.


 * A photo of cave-roosting bats, preferably in a guano cave? ✅
 * Not seeing any free pics of bats + cave + guano, but I asked some bat researchers
 * OK


 * "total volume of Gomantong cave" - this actually means the missing volume of rock, the opposite of what I was supposing when reading, expecting to hear that the guano had filled up the cave. Might be worth minor rewording. ✅


 * The photo of Bat Cave mine could be worth using in the U.S. section, in which case the link to that article can be moved into the text, described and cited. ✅
 * Pardon, which section?
 * "Bat guano", between Australia and modern times.
 * done
 * Guanine might be worth mentioning under Cultural significance, along with the chemist concerned. ✅
 * done
 * Recommendations for sustainable guano mining - should attribute these to IUCN and put the date in the text also. ✅
 * done

Summary
Ok, that's about it. The article is in very good shape and I've made only minor suggestions for improvements. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Chiswick Chap. I think I've pretty much addressed all your comments thus far. Enwebb (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for efficient responses. I think the article is in great shape, and to my eye it's more balanced with the recent changes. I do hope you'll pick an article or two from the Biology GAN list to review (hint - there's a short one of mine there!). Cheers, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)