Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North American River Otter/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:17, 26 January 2009.

North American River Otter

 * Nominator(s): Wikitrevor (talk)

I'm nominating this article for FA status because the content is well-developed, it has undergone a review that incorporated a finely detailed analysis, and it is of noteworthy quality that might be able to satisfy FA standards. --Wikitrevor (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review &mdash; images check out okay (public domain, or correctly CC licensed), except for:
 * File:OilSheenFromValdezSpill.jpg: this requires a source from where this image is acquired to prove that it is indeed from U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - as I don't feel like posting issues, i'll run through and do any copyediting myself. Ceran  →// forge 02:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I really love this article! The flow of the prose is really good, and I'm giving it a copyedit, but mostly that's just replacing words here and there. Ceran  →// forge 00:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have two problems: Lack of a variety of sources and image choice. Source 11 is used over 30 times, and it is often the only reference for entire sections (much of the Behavior, Characteristics, and Habitat), and Threats and the former need more references overall; in FAs a ref for the entire paragraph may nor suffice. I would prefer more different sources on individual facts. For images, I know that there a lot more photos of river otters on Commons; there are only four pictures of otters and a majority of the article has none at all. The boring photo of an oil spill is unnecessary and can simply be wikilinked. Reywas92 Talk  02:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll work on getting the sources diversified. The oil spill photo has been taken care of. --Wikitrevor (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, pls review WP:MOS; some of the images are looking off of the page, and could be juggled right-left. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of the dabs. Dana boomer (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

--Wikitrevor (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The oil spill image has been removed and replaced with an air pollution picture (that is perhaps more interesting and captivating).

Strongly Opposed A quick review reveals the following concerns.
 * Is it necessary to provide multiple citations from a single statement that is neither profound nor controversial? For example: "The statement: However, river otters will prey on Trout, Pike, Walleye (Sander vitreus vitreus), Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), and other game fishes during spawning has three references.
 * There is undue emphasis on food selection. A single heading Hunting and diet similar to that in Giant Otter would suffice. The multitude of subsection for each type of animal consumed is distracting. Nearly twenty species of fish are listed by name simply by virtue of the fact that otters may eat them. This is repeated for birds and mammals.
 * The article reads like an assemblage of journal articles as certain sections go into excessive detail. For example: In Idaho, juvenile, yearling, and adult males averaged 8, 11, and 17% heavier, respectively, than females of the same age. In Idaho? Does this pertain to the species in general or is this as I suspect original research extracted from a single study that is being adapted to an encyclopedia. Example: River otters host numerous endoparasites such as nematodes, cestodes, trematodes, the sporozoan Isopora, and acanthocephalans. Such endless details destroy prose and seems to be overkill. Numerous list exist in the article which makes extracting information of a general nature difficult if not painful.
 * Although not essential for FA; many of the references are not accessible (not even abstracts) online. This prohibits verification with exception of those with access to major libraries and defeats the true value of online encyclopedias. I assume we will all have to trust that the resources are valid.
 * A separate heading for hunting versus feeding seems redundant and disorganized
 * Fail to see the purpose of Population localization under the heading Habitat In fact another section Geographic range spreads out the information even more. A single comprehensive section covering where they live would be adequate; similar to what was done with the Giant Otter.
 * There seems to be excessive reliance on one primary reference by Lariviere, Serge; Lyle R. Walton. The article borders on being a summary of this publication.
 * The oil spill image has since been replaced with factories belching smoke. Is this in case the reader needs visual reinforcement of the concept of pollution? In fact, lower half of the article is so stark and devoid of visual stimuli it verges on intimidating. The layout in general is not visually appealing and does little to invite the reader into the subject.
 * Paraphrasing is lacking in that some sections are lifted directly from the source with no apparent effort to restructure. Case in point is verbatim and lacks quotations. This borderlines on plagiarism and is not suitable in an article of FA stature. A quick comparison to the text below with the source here (scroll down to section entitled threats). If not plagiarism -- certainly editorial laziness.

''Threats to otter populations in North America vary regionally. Otter inhabitation is affected by type, distribution, and density of aquatic habitats and characteristics of human activities. Preceding the settlement of North America by Europeans, otters were prevalent among aquatic habitats throughout most of the continent. Unregulated trapping, loss or degradation of aquatic habitats through filling of wetlands, and development of coal, oil, gas, tanning, timber, and other industries, resulted in extirpations, or declines, in otter populations in many areas. In 1980, an examination conducted on U.S. river otter populations determined that they were extirpated in 11 states and had experienced drastic lapses in 9 other states. The most severe population declines occurred in interior regions where fewer aquatic habitats supported fewer otter populations. Although the distribution of otters became reduced in some regions of southern Canada, the only province-wide extirpation occurred on Prince Edward Island.[1]''


 * This entry was submitted as part of a class project WikiProject AP Biology 2008. Perhaps the student is hoping to use this forum to solicit editorial help or guidance. If so, this is NOT the place to do that. I suggest peer reviews or recruitment from users knowledgeable on the subject. Assuming there is a teacher in charge - they may be in the position to make suggestions so that the article is more reflective of FA status before it is submitted. --Croatancrazy (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Croatancrazy, I believe you have identified some concerns that need to be addressed, and I will absolutely do my best to fix them. However, in doing so, you have expressed yourself in a manner that is not in good practice. For instance, you claimed I have I have "editorial laziness," but I beg to differ. I've put a painstaking amount of time and effort into making this article what it is, so you really don't have much room to label me as a lazy individual. Secondly, instead of acting using a Sock Puppet account and a false identity to review me, why don't you use your regular account so we can all know your true colors? I do appreciate your review though, and I will do what I can to address those concerns. By the way, I have a hunch on who you really are, so I might suggest that you go ahead and identify yourself. If you have a problem with me or something I may have done to offend you, then feel free to address me under your true identity.

Best regards, --Wikitrevor (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an Admin. could transfer this discussion to the talk page. Beginning with: "This entry was submitted as part of a class project ..." and ending with my comments here. (Please) Clearly these additional commentaries are irrelevant to the FA nomination; but rather address the editors. I have real world knowledge of this individual and have on multiple occasions solicited their opinions and requested their input. I will (in the real world) request that they abstain from voting and limit their critiques to commentaries. Otherwise, this might qualify as a case of recruitment for the purpose of obtaining votes. It was recruitment (guilty) but for the purpose of honest and specific evaluations of my students efforts. Perhaps a course in sensitivity may be in order although I'm not sure if they will see their commentaries as especially harsh - I'm guessing humorous. As to the commentaries specific to the article - those doing the FA review will either accept or reject them as valid concerns and the editors to the article can chose to address them or ignore them as they see fit. For those who wish to discuss the pros and cons of placing class projects or student work on the world-wide stage, my talk page would be an excellent place for such a discussion. Such projects are not without major pitfalls. Again please transfer this unfortunate sequence of text to the discussion page if it falls within the powers of an Admin to do so. --JimmyButler (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

--Wikitrevor (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to go ahead and "de-list" this article from FA nomination. I believe that valid concerns have been raised over the content of the article and perhaps submitting the article this early in the game was "jumping the gun." Clearly there is still much work that needs to be done before the article satisfies the FA criteria, and I'll take every measure to ensure that the standards are ultimately met. For now though, the article should not remain on FAC list.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.