Talk:Pigeon guillemot/GA1

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Sabine's Sunbird in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Hi, I'll review this one before the others listed, since as a co-nomination, it will free you both up for nominating other articles for FA individually if you want. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • The infobox image seems a bit low res. What about something like these?[1][2][3]
  • "There are five listed subspecies of the pigeon guillemot:" You should give a source here. Also, where are they listed?
  • "Breeding adult" Perhaps better to say "adult in breeding plumage", we don't know whether it was actually breeding... Also would be more consistent with what you have later, "winter plumage".
  • Any cladogram and range map?
  • Could perhaps be interesting to show feeding individuals[4], a flying individual[5], or a group on cliffs.[6][7]
  • The two following images need infoboxes on Commons:[8][9]
  • All size forcing of images should be removed, so that thumb size can automatically be adjusted to different screens. Seems to have been applied arbitrarily anyway. Why is the diving image so tiny, for example?
  • "The specific epithet, columba, is derived both from the Icelandic klumba, meaning "auk", and the Latin columba, meaning "pigeon"." This seems a bit strange, is it what the source says? I find it rather improbable that Pallas in 1811 would use an Icelandic word for a bird not even found in Iceland...
There definitely seems to be some sort of confusion. Perhaps Pallas' original text can be tracked down and checked... But looking at the Icelandic auk page[11], it seems some auks are called "klumba", so the relation to Columba may be conjecture by Pallas or later writers. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
It seems that a lot of auks are named for doves and pigeons and even the black guillemot. See the OED on Dovekie [12]. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I've added that the columba was a reference to the related black guillemot's name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Why is it named after pigeons, due to resemblance?
  • "other Classical writers." I don't think classical should be capitalised.
  • "The bird was later variously identified as a number of seabirds, including gulls, auks and gannets." Which bird? Specify for clarity.
  • All of them. It isn't known which bird it referred to, and those have been suggested. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC
I mean does "the bird" refer to the Pigeon guillemot or the "kepphos"? FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I fixed it I hope. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • "They find it difficult to take off in calm conditions" Seems a bit anthropomorphic. They have difficulty taking off?
  • "(compared to 58 km/h (36 mph) for the black guillemot)" Does this need to be in parenthesis? Looks awkward.
Fixed. Also, I changed "slightly faster" to "faster", as a 12mph difference isn't exactly "slightly". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • "this doesn't provide" Avoid contractions.
Done! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • "This display is antagonistic in a context where pigeon guillemots were in a group and often was the precursor to an attack." Unneeded change of tense. All the rest of the section is present tense.
  • "particularly rockfish (family Sebastidae)" Why do you give the family of this fish, but not any of the other species you mention?
  • "Species that prey on the nests include the is the" Something is wrong.
  • "square kilometres" You have metres, though the rest of the article appears to be in US English. I think it is something that can be changed in the conversion template.
  • Why are two sources listed differently in the refs?
Not duplicated, I mean the two last two book refs. Usually such have their own subsection (cited works or some such), if they are not listed with the other refs. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh, those. Probably left over. Removed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.