Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review/2007

American Goldfinch[edit]

I've been working on the article, and have expanded it. I'd like some feedback on what else needs to be done/ can be done to make it a better article. Thanks! Hey jude, don't let me down 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few points based on initial glance

Trivia is unenclopedic. Ditch it and where possible work it back into the text. The alternate name can go in the intro, the State Bird-ness worked into conservation. See also-s should also be avoided.
Physical description and taxonomy has no actual taxonomy other than stating its a finch. I'll check BNA to seee if there is any info to add, otherwise I'd suggest ditching taxonomy from the heading.
They are migratory birds. This is already covered in its own section, no need to repeat it. Also it's a good idea to start a section with the name of the bird rather than they, and try and aim for consistency between The American Goldfinch is and American Goldfinches are (as a rough rule of thumb use plurals for groups of species, like finches, or sexes, males and females - although I have to admit I'm a little scatterbrained when it comes to this myself.)
They are born naked, with reddish bodies with pale grey down, and closed eyes. They are altricial (incapable of leaving the nest and fed by the parents), as are all passerines. The two sentences are almost saying the same things. Mioght look better as Like all passerines the chicks are altricial, naked, helpless and with closed eyes. On hatching (avoid born with birds!) they have reddish bodies with pale grey down.

I'll take another look later to see what else needs doing, but this is good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made all those changes; thank you very much! Hey jude, don't let me down 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions:

Additional citing in article needed. Some facts are unreferenced.

Additional sources unwieldy. Additional sources section larger than article. Either elminate some references or reduce print size.

good to add link to videos from Internet Bird collection to external links

good to add link to wikispecies if available.

look at featured article bird species Emu, Elfin Woods Warbler, Kakapo, Mourning Dove and Arctic Tern to keep consistent format and for other ideas

Find better place for IUCN reference. Looks out of place.....

Looks like a good amount accomplished!

Pmeleski 14:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "further reading" section was already there before I started editing the article; I didn't see the point of it, but I didn't want to delete it. I think that there is a user who has added sections like this to a number of bird articles. Should I delete it, since I didn't use any of those materials, and the user who placed them there didn't make any edits to the content of the article? Hey jude, don't let me down 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the quality standards, it mentions you could delete unnecessary references. Reading through the further reading references, there are a number of them which do not even reference Am. Goldfinch in the title. I think it would be safe to delete those, delete the Am Goldfinch/ other bird paired further reading references, then try pairing the column if you need to. What do you think??????? Pmeleski 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good approach. I've done that now, and it's much better. The secion is still huge, but at least it's not longer than the article. Hey jude, don't let me down 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should submit it for a GA review, or is there a lot more work I should do? (I've never done this before, so if I'm being crazy and it's a long long way from a GA, just tell me, I have no idea and profess my ignorance.) Hey jude, don't let me down 00:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California Condor[edit]

I have worked extensively on this article. I personally believe it is at GA status and possibly FA. What do you all think? What else needs to be done, or should it be nominated? Rufous-crowned Sparrow 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about GA -compare with Common Raven and go for FA soonish. There are a few things to do and I'll post on talk page.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna of Scotland[edit]

I am not a zoologist, and having created the article I am unsure if the lack of comment on it since its creation is indicative of support for its contents or (as I suspect) because very few zoologists have visited it. I'd like to nominate it as GA at some point and would appreciate input. See also my comments on the Talk page Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight feather[edit]

I've just moved this over from my sandbox, and would like to get it rated. And, of course, I'm hoping others will have comments as to how to improve/expand it! (I'm still putting in citation notes, for example...) MeegsC | Talk 13:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First rate effort. I'll look at in depth later, but the first thought that occurs is to add Shymal's illustration of the dfeathers of the wing. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to nominate this as a Good Article candidate, and would appreciate some additional eyeballs doing a once-over! MeegsC | Talk 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]