Talk:Wood stork/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 11:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this in detail in due time. I am unfamiliar with North American birds but familiar with the painted stork. Shyamal (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Is bio-tourism different from ecotourism?

Not to my knowledge. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy and etymology

Is there a possibility of including a cladogram to clarify relation to other species.

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" former having basis in a description of the wood pelican." - what is a wood pelican?

It was a bird described by Mark Catesby; common name of a new bird described as T. loculator, which itself is synonymous with M. americana (the wood stork). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the "wood pelican" was another name for the same bird? Clarity needed. Shyamal (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best answer to that is yes, but maybe not. The source doesn't say that the wood pelican is T. loculator, it just says that T. loculator is based on the wood pelican. So, I tried to make things a bit more clear, but I can't say outright that they are the same bird, as that would be original research. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is in Catesby's plate - https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/42117195 I think the sentences need to be fixed so that the reader understands that it was also called the "wood pelican". Shyamal (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that... looks like you already fixed it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

"...have fluctuating water levels" - would it be useful to explain why the fluctuating levels help?

Clarified. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The habitat description does not seem to separate feeding/foraging habitat from nesting habitat.

I just described the breeding habitat; I have, although, just added the feeding habitat. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It is resident in South America, but in some places in North America, it disperses, sometimes as far as South America." - seems rather confusing.

Hugely simplified. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A distribution map would be helpful.

Requested. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added one based on HBW, please see if it needs any changes. Shyamal (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

"These eggs are usually laid one to two days apart[21] and incubated for 27 to 32 days,[22] starting with when the first egg is laid,[17] by both sexes" - a rather complicated and potentially confusing sentence.

I split the sentences and moved some stuff around. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressiveness

"Such nest take-overs are performed by more than one bird." - would a pair be more appropriate than "more than one bird"?

No, as sometimes bands of unmated storks will take over nests, instead of just mated pairs. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status

"In the United States, this bird is considered to be threatened, a recovery from its endangered status, which it held from 1984 to 2014 because of a decline in its population." complex and I do not think it reads correctly.

Broke the sentences apart and reworded a tiny bit. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AmEnglish

Would not American spelling (example "colored") be preferred for this species?

There are some places in its range where British spelling is preferred, and I, for the most part, prefer British spelling, so I'd like to keep the variety of English used as is. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article now fulfills all the GA criteria. Thank you for your contribution. Shyamal (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: