Wikipedia:Peer review/Fauna of Scotland/archive1

Fauna of Scotland

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because this GA is a potential FA candidate which has been copy-edited recently. Any and all comments are welcome.
 * This peer review discussion has been closed.

Thanks, Ben   Mac  Dui  19:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks quite nice overall and seems close to being ready for FAC. Here are my nit-picky suggestions: That's it from me - generally looks quite good, nicely written, great images, well referenced. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. I think a set width on the lead image is OK.
 * Left justified images directly under headers are also a no-no.
 * ✅ (I think - looks a bit weird to me.)
 * This is one of those MOS things that I do not understand myself. I had an FAC where it slipped through with left justified images under a header, but there seems to be more image checking at FAC lately. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unclear sentence Under the auspices of the European Union's Habitats Directive, as at 31 March 2003 a total of 230 sites in Scotland covering 8,748.08 square kilometres (3,377.65 sq mi) had been submitted by the UK government to the European Commission as candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC).[15] This might be AE (vs BE) but I think "as of 31 March 2003" is meant. Also, is there any more recent information (this is over 5 years ago) - are these now just SACs? Have more cSACs been submitted?
 * ✅ good catch.
 * Also not sure what they refers to in In total they extend to an area of around 350 square kilometres (140 sq mi). Is it the nine coastal sites? Or the 24 marine sites and the nine coastal sites?
 * Provide context to the reader WP:PCR - perhaps mention in The UK government is considering designating an area known as the Darwin Mounds, covering about 100 square kilometres (39 sq mi) [of the ocean floor?], as the first offshore cSAC.[15] Wouldn't an island be an offshore cSAC too?
 * ✅ by adding a brief footnote for citizens of land-locked states. GB is an island, so this just means not including any land. "Working offshore" means on an oil rig, as opposed to on Barra.
 * References generally go at the end of a sentence or phrase, so perhaps change Scotland was entirely[17] covered in ice during the Pleistocene glaciations.
 * A few places might be seen as jargon - the article nicely explains member of the biological order artiodactyla or "even-toed ungulates" but does not explain lagomorphs and I must confess that I was a bit fuzzy on what an endemic species was.
 * ✅ - piped link for "unique" although I am note sure this is easy to fix without defining "endemic" within the article. Attempted a lagomorph fix. Unfortunately in this instance "lagomorph" is the common name for 'lagomorpha'.
 * There are a few places where population percentages have a year given in the text, in most though this information is presumably found only in the reference. I am not sure if there should be consistency on this or not, but wanted to note it.
 * I have an ongoing concern that the article resembles a list in prose form. It would be possible to attempt to make this consistent, but I think it would just clutter up the text with additional numbers I don't think are necessary in such a broad overview. Hopefully FA reviewers will agree!
 * Understood - do let me know when this is at FAC, once the refs are fixed I think it will be ready. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also a few places where the absence of a species is noted without further explanation, for example A small colony of the introduced Golden Pheasant exists, but Lady Amherst's Pheasant is absent.[92] I suppose the wild Dodo and Ostrich are also absent from Scotland, but am not sure why the absence of Lady Amherst's Pheasant is significant - presumably it is found elsewhere in the UK? I like how this is written  Smooth Snakes, found elsewhere in the UK are absent, and Grass Snakes are rarely reported.[133] as it makes clear why the absent species is mentioned.
 * ✅ - at least I have fixed a couple. In one or two cases the species that are absent are very common elsewhere in the UK, which is why its mentioned. I'll have another look at this. Actually you are (nearly) wrong - there is an ostrich farm near Inverness - the burgers are surprisingly succulent.
 * There are Llama and alpaca farms in parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Would it make sense to have a blanket statement early in the article that species mentioned as absent are typically found elsewhere in the UK? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an idea although of course we might then wade into the lamentable territory of UK/GB/British Isles from which few return with their sanity intact. I'll see what can be done. I think in every instance there is also a reference to some other part of the B. Isles now, hopefully suggesting the reason why this is mentioned.
 * I was curious as to why so many NNRs lost their status - would it make sense to add a sentence explaining this to Until 2004 there were 73, but a review carried out in that year resulted in a significant number of sites losing their NNR status, and as of 2006 there are 55.[158]?
 * ✅ as a footnote.
 * It's an idea although of course we might then wade into the lamentable territory of UK/GB/British Isles from which few return with their sanity intact. I'll see what can be done. I think in every instance there is also a reference to some other part of the B. Isles now, hopefully suggesting the reason why this is mentioned.
 * I was curious as to why so many NNRs lost their status - would it make sense to add a sentence explaining this to Until 2004 there were 73, but a review carried out in that year resulted in a significant number of sites losing their NNR status, and as of 2006 there are 55.[158]?
 * ✅ as a footnote.

Thanks for the above. I've been away visiting cousin Arthur but I'll get to this over the weekend. Ben  Mac  Dui  09:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I've had a look at them all now - many thanks once again. Ben  Mac  Dui  15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * What makes the following sources reliable?
 * http://www.britishwildlifecentre.co.uk/index.htm
 * Hmm, much less reliable than the name suggests. A duplicate that added nothing and I've removed it.
 * http://www.supernaturale.com/
 * Replaced.
 * http://www.south-coast-central.co.uk/index.html
 * Duplicate and now moved to External links
 * http://www.north-berwick.co.uk/bassRock.asp
 * Information now missing and replaced with BTO
 * http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/index.html
 * ✅ Remote places sometimes lack mainstream coverage and this source is used a fair amount in articles about Scottish islands. I'd describe them as "very reliable" in that context, although clearly they are not an organisation with a professional background in natural history. It's replaceable if need be.
 * http://thomsonecology.com/index.html
 * ✅ Not an academic source but a well-respected professional consultancy. The information is not controversial and easily corroborated if need be.
 * http://www.wildlifeextra.com/index.html
 * ✅ A strong focus on wildlife matters, albeit with a journalistic focus rather than an academic one. As the subject in this case is a piece of local PR that was published for a national audience I think its acceptable in this case.
 * http://www.pawsonline.info/kellas_cat.htm (also lacking publisher info)
 * ✅ Publisher fixed. The source is hardly the most reputable, but this is cryptozoology after all. It refers to academic work undertaken by the Royal Scottish Museum but sadly this project does not seem to lie within reach of Google. All the other hits appear to be of a similar nature. I could replace it with one where the publisher sounds more plausible, but I fear that would be window dressing only. There are references in local newspapers but they say little in addition and arguably are no more reliable.
 * http://www.theangloscot.co.uk/
 * ✅ I'd like to think that Dr. Yvonne A. Simpson's report for the Orkney Natural History Association is acceptable. I fear I may regret the whole cryptozoology section, although it seems supine to ignore it.
 * Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. (Examples... RSPB, SAC, JNCC, etc.)
 * ✅ "RSPB" is probably better known than the full name and is used by the organisation itself- see for example their Home page where the full name is tucked away in the small print.
 * "SAC" only appears once in the Notes and is simply a reflection of the title of the page JNCC produced.
 * "JNCC" Fixed.
 * The following pages deadlinked:
 * http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/cmnp_tcm5-136416.pdf dead
 * Couldn't find new link so replaced with others.
 * Internet archive claims to have it, but I could not open the file here Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.nesbiodiversity.org.uk/turtles.htm
 * Fixed
 * http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/conservation/sobb/sobb2007summary.pdf
 * Fixed - now links to new download page.
 * http://beta.buchanobserver.co.uk/archived/2006/week_47/news/beatsbuchan.asp (lacking publisher also)
 * Replaced
 * Current ref 37 (http://www.thehedgehog.co.uk/campaign.htm) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * The publisher was mixed up with the page title. Fixed. Its a primary source that indicates the depth of the controversy in some circles. This may be ultra vires?
 * Current ref 36, shouldn't the publisher be Uist Wader Project?
 * The publisher was mixed up with the page title again. ( I don't like these templates - a kind and helpful user added them all shortly after the article made GA and I didn't have the heart to revert them all.)
 * http://www.highnorth.no/library/myths/ad-a-na.htm (current ref 52) originally appeared in a print magazine, it looks like. Should be formatted as such.
 * Fixed
 * Current ref 140 is lacking a last access date.
 * Template Cite news was hiding it. Fixed.
 * Current ref 149 is lacking a publisher. It also deadlinks.
 * Replaced
 * Current ref 160 is lacking a publisher
 * Fixed
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this input. Accepting that you are not watching I have/will reply above for future reference. Ben  Mac  Dui  14:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)