Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Bouvet Island/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC).

List of birds of Bouvet Island

 * Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Another tiny island list; this is kind of a lazy nom because I'm procrastinating on the leads for the bird lists, but such is life. AryKun (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Drive-by comment
 * What is sourcing the first two paragraphs of the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Huyser 2001, listed in General in the Refs section. It's the only good source for the island and cites basically the entire lead, so I haven't cited it inline, similarly to how Lepage and Clements et al. 2023 aren't cited inline. AryKun (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , reminder. AryKun (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "Bouvet experiences average annual temperatures of −2.7–1.6 °C" - that looks confusing with the minus sign and the dash. I would change to "Bouvet experiences average annual temperatures of between −2.7 and 1.6 °C"
 * Changed.


 * "There are 41 species of birds that have been recorded from Bouvet Island" => "There are 41 species of birds that have been recorded on Bouvet Island"
 * Changed.


 * "and black-bellied storm petrel" => "and the black-bellied storm petrel"
 * Changed.


 * "The following tags have been used to highlight several categories" - given that there's apparently only one category/tag, could it simply be incorporated into the prose
 * Done.


 * "They are pelagic birds" - no idea what this means, is there a link?
 * Linked; I could replace with seabird, but pelagic has the additional connotation of mainly occurring on the open sea, instead of in coastal areas like sandpipers would.


 * "and are the extremely small seabirds" => "and are extremely small seabirds"
 * Changed.


 * General refs look better before specific IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember being told that the MOS requires specific before general in some previous FLC; I'm not sure if this is correct, though.


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments by Grungaloo


 * Bouvet vs Bouvet Island - Both are used throughout the article, recommend sticking to one for consistency.
 * Changed all to Bouvet Island.


 * "And two mammals known from the island" - Technically correct writing but for laypeople can sound odd and may imply that the animals were known because of the island.
 * Tweaked.


 * "The most important breeding species" - what does it mean to be important in this context? Largest, most vulnerable, rarest?
 * They're the species mentioned by the source, I've tweaked it a bit to align more closely with that.


 * "The commonly occurring native species do not fall into any of these categories." - Could maybe drop this. There's only one tag and it only applies to one species.
 * Done


 * "They are pelagic birds and feed on a variety of animals, such as fish, bird eggs, and lemmings, by hunting, scavenging, or kleptoparasitizing them." - Lots of commas, suggest splitting into two sentences or putting "such as fish, bird eggs, and lemmings" into brackets or em-dashes.
 * Added em-dashes.


 * The Skuas+Jaeger and Gull family descriptions don't start with "The" but the others do (the penguins, the albatrosses). Suggest making it consistent (personally I like it without "the").
 * Removed "the" throughout.


 * Northern royal albatross binomial name should be Diomedea sanfordi. grungaloo (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * Serial commas - use is inconsistent. "Consists of heaps of boulders, lava and gravel" vs "one species of worm, and two mammals". Suggest switching to one or the other - I can list out all occurrences if needed. grungaloo (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've changed all to Oxford. AryKun (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- Looks great u|AryKun! grungaloo (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Dank

 * Not sure if I have anything to add; let's try some questions first.
 * "true" petrels: do reliable sources usually call them "the true petrels"? If so, we should create a redirect for "true petrel" (which we don't have now), and the article on them should describe them as "true petrels" (it doesn't now), and you should drop the quote marks. If not, then my recommendation is to avoid the term. (I understand that naturalists use the word "true" whenever they feel like it; I just don't think that's a good idea on Wikipedia, because I think the informal meaning will confuse a lot of readers.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * and : the wording "true petrels" seems to have been used only on Wikipedia and other mirrors, so I've removed it. I guess it was introduced by whoever first mass-created the species lists, and that description was just copied to the other ones later on. AryKun (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good sleuthing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to comment or edit. Nothing else is jumping out at me as a prose problem.
 * 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
 * 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
 * 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
 * 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
 * 4. It is navigable.
 * 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Jim
I agree with Dan regarding the petrels, otherwise all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Source review – Reliability of the references looks sufficiently strong across the board. One formatting issue should be looked at: the second general reference spells out the publishing/access dates, while the rest of the cites use YYYY-MM-DD style. These should be made consistent in whichever way is desired, likely by changing the formatting in the one reference that is different than the others. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , standardized to YYYY-MM-DD. AryKun (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.