Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albatross

Albatross[edit]

Self-nomination. Been working on this, on and off, for several months, although a lot of the work was creating related articles (like all the individual species). Been to peer review and fixed almost everything as suggested (with one or two exceptions as noted). Hopefully you'll find it well written, well referenced, well reseached and illustrated. It covers all the salient points about the family, though many books have been written about them and no doubt I'll be breaking some sections off into their own articles in the future. And, if you'll forgive me pre-empting a question, as far as I can tell, from reading many books and journal articles, the wretched things do not fly and sleep at the same time. If this manages to get featured it would be the first family to do so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: The taxonomy section is a bit confusing. I'd exepct to be told on what basis x split the genera or grouped them back. Also the detail about what separates Albatrosses from other Procellariiformes is in the next section, while it makes more sense to have it under the Taxonomy section. Circeus 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd exepct to be told on what basis x split the genera or grouped them back I'll try and clarify that. Also the detail about what separates Albatrosses from other Procellariiformes is in the next section The major difference is in size, the nasal tubes and the legs, all of which are morphololgical. Rather than repeating it I'll make a not in the taxonomy section to that effect. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to clarify why the lumping of the genera happened in 1965, though to be honest reading the papers again it looks like there was a great deal of "cause we say so" in the reasoning. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a reference to Lumpers and splitters is in order ;-) Circeus 16:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

awesome! Never realised we had a page on that, though I guess it is needed. I linked as suggested, anyways. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stunning article, very strong on references. Very close to FA quality overall, and on many aspects, exceeding it. I think the major unresolved issue is around the number of species; given the disagreement over this internationally, I think the only option for this article is to present all views with similar weight.

My only other suggestions as to areas where attention is needed are mostly quite picky. I've listed them on the talk page rather than cluttering this page up. Finally, many apologies Sabine's Sunbird for not getting round to this earlier SP-KP 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiii. presenting all views? Given as how each scientist involved in Albatross research has a differnt view, it would triple the length of the article. Hows about I expand the paragraph on the question of the number of species with arguments for and against 14 and 21 (and 24?). I'd suggest having two lists in the Species section, but the way it is set up now makes it clear which of the 'new' species came from which old species. I'll also make it clearer that the 21 species is an interim taxonomy, but just as the 21 species taxonomy may be wrong, the 14 certainly is (at least insofar as the Tristan Albatross is more distinct from the Wandering than the Amsterdam). I'll address your picky concerns, uh, as soon as I see them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picky comments are there now, sorry! Yes, I take your point about "all views" - I guess I thought maybe there are just the two main schools of thought - "14ish" and "20+" ... the species list isn't really my main concern, it's more that (usually) when a species total is mentioned, a definite figure of 21 is given, whereas we ought to be using a more neutral form or words - but I appreciate that's a difficult task! SP-KP 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be horrifically difficult to discuss the IUCN redlist status of the family without making reference to 21 species, since that is the number they quote (as does BirdLife). And I have put in parenthesese that this is their number. The only other time the number of species is mentioned is in the taxonomy section, in the first paragraph (where I will per your request be more even handed) and in the section that directly deals with the disagreement, which I'll expand. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if ranges of different "species" overlap, but maybe you can avoid the question by referring to the number of breeding locations? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t think that helps, most species breed on multiple islands and there can be as many as 7 different species on one island. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The controversy surrounding how many species of albatross exist seems like a topic for a different article altogether, I'm okay with just a passing reference to it in this article, but a fuller discussion of the conflict should exist elsewhere. As for the albatross article itself, it looks great to me. The references for this particular article are very well done. RyanG e rbil10 00:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per reasons above. But, I do have one nitpicky suggestion. Footnotes usually go after punctuation, i.e. "...end of sentence.^[1]" instead of "...end of sentence^[2]."--Fallout boy 10:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, and that suggestion about notes has been pointed out to me on my talk page and will be followed up (either by me or the suggester)> Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have picked through and corrected all of SP-KP's minor issues (bar one, see talk page for reasoning) and hopefully addressed his points on the number of species. I have also redone the punctuation around footnotes as suggested, and added a family tree to the taxonomy section to clarify what is being said there. I will be doing an albatross taxonomy article once this has been finished. Sabine's Sunbird talk 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the "number of species" issue resolved, I'm very happy to Support. Well done to Sabine's Sunbird for a great article. SP-KP 16:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An enthusiastic support, I should say. Sean WI 21:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is an excellent article! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-wholeheartedly. PDXblazers 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very well done! Excellent use of images and references! — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. These are two points from peer review that I think would merit addressing (you haven't crossed them out, so I assume they've not been tackled):
- ~~Inclusion of current threat statuses for each species would be a useful addition~~
- Some info on places where albatross viewing is part of the local tourist economy would be worth including (e.g. Kaikoura) - but only if this is a significant phenomenon - also, how does it tie in with conservation? is there eco-tourism with money going back to conservation organisations?)
- ~~Since SP-KP mentioned it, I'm now intrigued to learn what the unguis is.~~ - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, to adress those points - adding the conservation status to the species list makes it look horribly cluttered, look at Anas for what I mean. The conservation status of any one species is easy enough to see by looking at it's individual page. If a lot of people feel strongly that the conservation status should be there I'll relent but the status should be added without using the template. I really think it is sufficient to say that 19 of 21 are threatened, which two are critical and leave the specific details to the individual pages.

I will follow that up, I meant to do so earlier.

Albatross bills have 9 bony plates, 2 naricorns, the superior unguicorn, culminicorn, 2 latericorns, ramicorn, inferior ungicorn and inter-ramicorn. Without a photo to illustate this it is simply a dry and uniteresting list, much better to simply say that the bill is composed of bony plates. Sabine's Sunbird talk 12:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I withdraw two of my criticisms. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I added a sectrion on tourism to the culture section, there is not a great deal of information about specific ecotourist projects except the colony I mentioned. It is hard to separate out albatrosses as a draw on pelagic birdwatching trips from the draw of procellariids, storm petrels or anything else, from personal experience I'd suggest that they are what people really want to see but that would consititute original research. As for visits to colonies, it seems logical that the money from that would go to the programmes as most colonies are on unihbaitated islands owned by governments who also manage the colonies, but I'd suggest the ammount of money they contribute is quite small. Sabine's Sunbird talk 12:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work! Support. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support~~Comment I copyedited the minor problems I saw, but there are a few little details I would like sorted out before I give full support:~~
- As they progress the number of birds they interact with drops until they choose one partner. - Misplaced modifier.
- ...but in nature it probably comes from the die-off that occurs after squid spawning and the vomit of squid-eating whales (sperm whales, pilot whales and Southern Bottlenose Whales), or possibly some other source - This isn't really saying anything: "It probably comes from this, or possibly some other source" is true about everything.
- even for the smaller albatrosses, it takes anywhere between 170 and 140 days. It's odd that the larger number is written first. I didn't correct this because I want to make sure that it isn't a typo (e.g. 170 and 240, or similar).
- Regarding the albatrosses and culture section, the first thing I did when reading this article was search for "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", glad to see it's in there. However, there is no mention of referring to a burdensome person or obstacle as being an "albatross" or an "albatross around one's neck", which I believe also stems from Coleridge.

Overall, it's a great article, I enjoyed reading it. ~~Once these little details are addressed, I'll support.~~ Pagra shtak 15:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hopefully I have adressed your concerns. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting now, that was pretty quick! Pagra shtak 16:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now wherefore stopp'st thou me ? deeptrivia (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic work. I've removed the redundant ref info so that the same data isn't duplicated multiple times throughout the article, and made the image caption a link. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]