Wikipedia:Featured article review/Seabird/archive1: Difference between revisions

Seabird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Seabird

• Featured article review/Seabird/archive1

Notified: Sabine's Sunbird, WikiProject Birds, 30 Jan

I am nominating this featured article, promoted in 2006, for review because it has some issues with verifiability (more than 20 cn tags) as well as lacking info on global warming impacts, as pointed out by Z1720 and Femke Nijsse on the talk page 2 weeks ago. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So..... (does some quick math) its been nearly 15 years since this was promoted? Thanks, I don't feel remotely old now. Well, I suppose its about time for a tidy. I can start going through, but as I am lacking the textbook I used heavily back then I may need some help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Great! This would be an important article to save. Maybe you can get specific pages of the book from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. If you need any scientific papers, you can always ask me as well. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm hoping my local university still has it. I would need to browse it a bit to find all the generic statements that I was a touch sloppy in citing back in 2006, so I can't ask for specific pages without the index/table of contents. But anyway I've started adding missing citations. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This article does not mention anything about climate change. Simply writing "Seabird" on Google Scholar will list a reservoir of sources about their decline due to a number of reasons, and many of whom are recent. This one is useful for example. Wretchskull (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sabine's Sunbird: Could we get an update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a small paragraph on climate change, and slightly expanded the lede. Still hoping for Sabine's Seabird to come back. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can also help with adding citations. ApproximateLand (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene, what is the specific ref style being used? I've looked at WP:Citing sources. ApproximateLand (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The style of the references is quite straightforward: it includes everything in inline notes. Just make sure to include page numbers if you use longer documents (books or reports). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I looked at the style and I see what to do. I asked about it because I've seen that one of the concerns about citations for featured articles is to make sure the citation style is consistent. ApproximateLand (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crap I have some stuff to add too. (knew I'd forgotten something...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Pomatostomus, a new user, has addressed almost half of the citation needed tags by adding high-quality sources. Pinging them here, in case they weren't aware they're helping save the star. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added three refs.[1]. I'm going to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request for the page number for this one.[2] I couldn't find anything on "especially during the breeding season when hungry chicks need regular feeding." I looked for more recent refs for the older two citations I used, but I didn't find any, or, if I did, they were about one area, one type of gull, or very old. For "opportunistic feeders", I saw some that would say "like most gulls." I think the page should should say most gulls are opportunistic feeders, but the ref I used says "many." Finding a ref that talked about gulls having bills for opportunistic feeding was tough. I stuck to "are opportunistic feeders." ApproximateLand (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw this ref,[3] (Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach) but it plagiarizes this page word for word. Here's its publisher page.[4]ApproximateLand (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some classificatory material. Musing on any more needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about page number resolved.[5]. ApproximateLand (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At present,[6] only three pieces are left tagged as needing refs. Last time I was on, I looked for refs for "Seabird colonies occur exclusively for the purpose of breeding; non-breeding birds will only collect together outside the breeding season in areas where prey species are densely aggregated." and "Other species, such as some of the storm petrels, diving petrels and cormorants, never disperse at all, staying near their breeding colonies year round.", but came up empty. Since website refs are being used,[7][8][9][10] maybe I should give websites a try. Are we sourcing the seabird families section too? ApproximateLand (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ApproximateLand: At page 43 in this book, the quote "Other species, such as some of the storm petrels, diving petrels and cormorants, never disperse at all, staying near their breeding colonies year round." exists and someone has copied it to the article. I could rewrite the sentence and add the reference, what do you think? Wretchskull (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: wait, I'm confused. Did the book copy from Wikipedia or vice versa? Because the book states exactly what the article has. Wretchskull (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the book, I am suspicious it copied from wikipedia really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wretchskull, I think, in all likelihood, the book plagiarized the page. Swaths are copied word for word. We can look in the page history and see when what's on the page was added vs. when the book published its information. Books are always plagiarizing Wikipedia. See my section "Springer Nature copying Wikipedia".[11] ApproximateLand (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom block, [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is still tagged for unsourced statements, as needing update and as needing clarification. Are these points being worked on? DrKay (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and look in the next few days Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: tagged for unsourced statements, as needing update and as needing clarification. DrKay (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per DrKay, nothing much has happened since the first half of April. (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - significant outstanding issues, and its been about a month since significant improvements were made. Also some concerns about socking edits during the FARC stage. This looks like it may be best to let this one go now, and let it get worked back up to shape outside of the FAR constraints. Hog Farm _Talk 17:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]