Talk:North American river otter/GA1

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

Having a look at how many edits the article has received since the start of the nomination (certainly a good thing :)), the nomination should probably be withdrawn until the work is done. Or is it done now? --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the main author the article is indeed ready for a review now. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Review by Dana boomer
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I think overlinking might be a slight concern in the article. Per WP:Overlink, common geographical terms shouldn't be linked.  For example, in the Geographic range section, I would delink state and country names.  I would leave river names, island names, etc.  Also, when you are talking about other animals in relation to the otter (prey, predators, etc), it is probably not necessary to link both the common and the scientific name when they go to the same article. Therefore, I would suggest just linking the common name.  These two things will prevent the blue "streaks" across the article where several lines are completely or mostly blue, which makes it more difficult to read and makes it harder to pick out what links are actually important.✅
 * There are quite a few really short paragraphs in the article (three sentences or less). Please try to either expand these or combine them with other sections.  You don't have to do this with all of them, but if you do it with most of them it will make the article easier and nicer to read through.✅ (I went back and I think I recombined most, if not all, of the short paragraphs.)
 * The lead could stand to be bulked up a bit. Try adding another sentence or two summarizing important points in the article to each paragraph.✅
 * Please make sure that you consistently go either from metric to imperial or imperial to metric. Currently, the conversions go both ways, in different sentences.✅
 * You may want to read over the article with an eye towards reducing duplication. For example, I have noticed that you discuss the fact that they use other animals dens in at least two different places. This isn't a requirement for GA, but it is an idea, to make the prose tighter and more "brilliant", which is an FA requirement. There is also duplicated information between the Geographic range section and the Population localization section.✅
 * In the Taxonomy and evolution section, I am not seeing the point of the text "Schreber, J.C.D., 1777. in Schreber's Die Säugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen, Wolfgang Walther, Erlangen, 7 volumes, 1774-1846; 3(18):pl. 126.B[1776], text: 3(26):457, 588(index)[1777].[2]". What is the reasoning behind the inclusion of this?✅ (Removed)
 * In the first three paragraphs of the Physical characteristics section, you start 12 consecutive sentences with the word "the". Do you think some of these could be reworded, please?✅
 * In the Hunting section, you say "The river otter can be trained to catch and retrieve fish and to hunt and retrieve ducks (Anatidae) and pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) from land or water." I'm not sure if this means they can be trained to retrieve animals for humans to have, such as a retriever dog, or can they be trained to hunt for themselves, such as in a zoo setting? ✅ (Elaborated, clarified)
 * In the Reproduction section, you say "In early spring, expectant mothers begins to look for a den for their yearlings." So, when mothers are expecting, they look for dens for the kits they had the year before?  But then later you say "once they are settled in" making it sound like it's the expectant mother itself that moves.✅
 * In the Geographic range section, you say "Originally, this species is thought to have ranged from 250–700 North latitude and from 530–1660 West longitude." I assume that you're attempting to compare their original range (before European occupation?) to their current range. However, by giving their original range in lat/long, and their current range in areas inhabited, it does not make for an easier comparison. I would also suggest looking at this section with an eye towards placing all of the information on where they originally inhabited in one paragraph, and all of the information on where they currently inhabit in another paragraph.✅ (remove lat./long. sentence and may elaborate with a paragraph later)
 * There is a lot of duplication in the first three paragraphs of the "Fishes" section. There are two considerations here. First, why the duplication?  Two, when you have the same word (i.e. sunfish) mentioned more than once in a section, you don't need to wikilink any more than the first occurance.✅
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I've added fact tags in a couple of spots where I would like to see references.✅
 * Books really should have page numbers...✅
 * Refs 17 and 18 need publishers. Also, what makes Ref 18 (Cabrera) reliable? ✅ (Removed Cabrera ref. and publisher is provided in citation template for ref. 17, the National Geographic Society)
 * References should either always use templates or never use templates.✅ (established similar formatting, subsequent citations will use template)
 * As a quick note (this isn't a necessary, just a tip). Instead of writing when using a named ref, you can instead simply write  to get the same effect.✅
 * 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:
 * Here is the beginning of the review. I still have to do a full prose review, so I should have the rest of the review up in a little bit. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And a bit more... Dana boomer (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC) And more... Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright, I'm finished with the review. I know that this looks like a lot of issues above, but overall, this is a very nice article.  I can see that you have done a lot of work on this article, and it looks great.  I'll be keeping an eye on this review page, so if you have any questions, please let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Here is the beginning of the review. I still have to do a full prose review, so I should have the rest of the review up in a little bit. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And a bit more... Dana boomer (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC) And more... Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright, I'm finished with the review. I know that this looks like a lot of issues above, but overall, this is a very nice article.  I can see that you have done a lot of work on this article, and it looks great.  I'll be keeping an eye on this review page, so if you have any questions, please let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much DanaBoomer. This article will turn out very good under these guidelines.
 * Best regards,--Wikitrevor (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Second Review
I'm starting a second discussion here, so my comments don't get lost above. The work you have done so far looks really good, and has improved the article. I have a couple of comments right now, and then I will take a fuller look at your edits tomorrow.


 * Ref 17 does not provide a publisher. The full citation is, which, as you can see, does not include a field entitled "publisher=".✅
 * What I meant for formatting the references was that all of them should either use a template (i.e., "cite journal", "cite book", "cite web") or not use a template at all (i.e., no curly bracket marks around the ref with fields to fill in). I see that you've done some formatting, but this wasn't really what I meant. ✅
 * I see that you have removed the Cabrera ref, but don't see that you have replaced it with anything. Does the reference at the end of that paragraph cover all of the Cabrera info, as well?  If not, you need to add a new reference, as well as removing the old one (either that, or remove the information if you cannot find a reliable source for it).✅ (Cabrera's info. came from Animal Diversity Web, so I cited that website)
 * Also, "fishes" is not a word. The plural of "fish" is "fish".✅ (I used fishes to refer to more than one species collectively and fish to indicate a specific species. This cite has some additional elaboration: http://www.austmus.gov.au/fishes/what/fish.htm)

I know it seems like I'm making a lot of comments, but the article really has progressed, and is really in a good spot. You've chosen a long, fairly complicated article for your project, and in doing such, made it easier for reviewers to find things to complain about *grin*. I'll do some more copyediting on the article tomorrow, and leave any other comments I have here on the review page. In the meantime, feel free to work on the comments above if you would like to. Please let me know if you have any questions, and great work so far! Dana boomer (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm....the plural of fish can be fishes. I've checked the Merriam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries. The plural of fish can be fishes although it seems to be used in the sense of more than one species rather than individuals. Cheers,Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry about that. Reviewing too late at night, apparently! And a few more comments (really, I promise this is all of them):
 * I would still like to see a slight reorganization of the Geographic range section. At the moment you start out with where they live now, then go to where they use to live, back to current, back to previous, and back again to current. This makes it confusing.  Try putting everything on where they used to live in one paragraph and everything on where they currently live in another paragraph.  This will probably also help to reduce duplication and make your prose tighter too.✅
 * There is still quite a bit of duplication in the Fishes section. As an excercise, try combining the first five paragraphs of the section (everything but the last one) into one paragraph that only mentions each type of fish once. Try it on the talk page if you don't want to mess around with the article itself.  Even if you don't end up combining it quite that much in the end, doing some combining of information and paragraphs will make your prose tighter and more easily read.✅(I recombined the short paragraphs, so it may have reached the intended effect, but I'll read through it a couple of times to be sure)
 * With these two things finished and the references properly formatted, I think that we'll be good to go for GA status. You've done some great work so far on this article, and I think we can make it even a bit better over the next day or so. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Dana Boomer!

Thank you for the additional guidelines. Looks like the article is on the "final straightaway" before crossing the finish line with GA. I'll see what I can cook up with the final editing suggestion (establishing the Reference consistency).

Thank you, --Wikitrevor (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything looks great, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status! Very nice work, and thank you for your responsiveness to my comments and concerns. If you decide that you would like to take this article to FA status, please feel free to drop a note on my talk page - I would be more than willing to help. Dana boomer (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I sincerely appreciate the beneficial contributions made by everyone to North American River Otter. Thanks to DanaBoomer for the GA Nomination refinement, Wassupwestcoast for helping me expand and edit the article, Shyamal for the synthesis of a range map, JimmyButler (my teacher) for his guidance, and all those who improved this article in any way.

Best regards, --Wikitrevor (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)