Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red-throated loon/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2017 [1].

Red-throated loon

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the red-throated loon (diver) — the world's smallest loon, found throughout the northern hemisphere. Since this bird breeds primarily in the High Arctic, most of our readers won't have encountered it in all its breeding plumage glory, but it's pretty common along populated coastlines (and major inland waterways) further south in the winter. The article is one I've honed over a number of years, and I think it's ready for promotion. I look forward to any constructive criticism you can provide! MeegsC (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

Referencing system is inconsistent in an inconsistent way (that isn't supposed to be a joke; there are perfectly reasonable ways to be consistently inconsistent). There are only two books listed in the "Sources" section. meanwhile, there are books, journals and other media listed in the <ref>-style "Notes" section. Well then, you might assume that the books given in Sources are only those that have been cited more than once. But that is not the case; on casual inspection, I see at least Sibley Guide to Birds and Birdwatcher's Handbook cited more than once. <insert crankiness> I personally would prefer to see all books in the Sources section (and all other sources, too)</cranky>, but at least something a bit more consistently inconsistent should be attempted. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has nothing to do with the number of citations. The two books listed under "Sources" are those in which the Loons chapter is of considerable length — i.e. if I just put a page range there, it would likely be unnecessarily tough for people to verify the information. If you look in the top section, you'll see that there are links to those book sources with individual page numbers. Books in the top section (i.e. NOT the Sources section) have information on only one or two pages. I can certainly put all books in the top section, but that wouldn't allow me to indicate the individual page numbers on which information is found. What do you suggest? MeegsC (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly leave the journals and other media the way they are; changing them would be an onerous burden. I see 14 books (or ISBNs, anyhow) in the "Notes" section. Arguably, perhaps, moving those 14 down below would not be a life-threatening task. But your mileage may vary. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing everything wouldn't be an onerous burden. I can certainly move all the references to the "Sources", by just removing the separate section! If I put the now-separated books in with the rest of the references (and call them all "Sources" rather than "References", if I'm understanding your suggestion), do I then just provide the whole book chapter's page range rather than individual page numbers for the various bits of information I've referenced? And does that really help the reader? I'm guessing that I'm not completely understanding your complaint. MeegsC (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would be a burden. It's not just changing headers; it's also changing formats. For example, if you move the full reference in Note 6 "Johnsgard, Paul A. (1987). Diving Birds... etc." down to the Sources, you'd have to leave behind a short reference "Johnsgard 1987 p. xxx" in its place. [I just noticed you don't have page numbers for Johnsgard, btw]. Doing that for 14 books would be a genuine headache, certainly, but perhaps not so much as the heat death of the sun. Doing it for 60+ other references, though, might spark depressive tendencies and excessive alcohol intake. I'm open to suggestions, though. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Okay, now I understand. Well, I'll start with the books, and then move on to the others. Would you suggest individual page numbers for journal articles too? MeegsC (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait! I don't suggest you "move on to the others", unless you have a preternaturally high pain threshold. Here is one example of what I meant in my very first comment when I said "there are perfectly reasonable ways to be consistently inconsistent". The journals are all consistent with each other as they stand now, but the books are not consistent with each other. I am certainly not insisting that you must make the journals consistent with the books (though i would have preferred it that way from the beginning). I am only wanting the books consistent with... the other books. So books would be internally consistent, and journals and other media would be internally consistent, but books would not be consistent with all else. Do you see what I am saying?... I'm saying "Only change the books, preferably by moving the 14 in the upper section down to the lower, and making corresponding format changes." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi:, I've moved all the books into the Source section, and added page numbers for the Johnsgard citation. MeegsC (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Gavia_stellata_repartition.png: the source file has been speedy-deleted from Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I don't know what this means. What do I need to do? MeegsC (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image was based on one on Commons that has been deleted. These are the possible reasons that might have happened - if it was any of 1–6 this image is likely non-free, if it was one of the others then we just need a source. I'd suggest you start by contacting an admin on Commons, directly if you know one or via their admin noticeboard, to ask for the specific reason the file was deleted, then we can go from there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've posted the question at the admin noticeboard on Commons. MeegsC (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: the reply was Hi, I don't see any valid reason why it was deleted, let alone speedied, so I restored it. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then we'll just need a source for the data reflected in the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber

This article has shaped up nicely. Just double-checking....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranging from 55–67 centimetres... - ok should be "to" instead of ndash. I changed it thus unless you want to do something else...

~~I just realized we haven't mentioned that diver was English and loon was American - and also which is the IOC official name.~~

I took a look at that—the IOC has it has the Red-throated loon. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this information, with references.MeegsC (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley

Looks pretty good so far, I'm going to post more stuff here when I am done reading the article. Just looking over it though, the thing that stands out is the fact that you are inconsistent in your usage of "to" and the em dash for ranges. As I said, I will look at it more in-depth a bit later. Good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Pretty sure you could remove a semicolon in "which descends slightly in pitch and lasts about a second; due to strong harmonics surrounding the primary pitch".~~
The species also has a short wailing call – aarOOao...aarOOao... – which descends slightly in pitch and lasts about a second; due to strong harmonics surrounding the primary pitch, this meowing call is more musical than its other calls. These are two separate, but related sentences – hence the semi-colon. I don't think it would be grammatically correct to remove it. MeegsC (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, again, I missed the last part of the sentence. It makes a lot more sense now... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that you need to remove an oxford comma in "Primarily dark brown to dark grey above, it is slightly paler on the sides of its head and neck, as well as on its throat, chest, and flanks, with a pale grey lower breast and belly," so it is consistent.
I'm not sure where you're suggesting I remove a comma; this looks right to me! MeegsC (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:OXFORD, you should remove the comma before "and" and after "chest". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly add a hyphen to "In flight, when passing conspecifics or circling its own pond, it gives a series of rapid yet rhythmic goose-like cackles - kaa-kaa-kaa or kak-kak-kak, at roughly five calls per second."
I made this an en-dash instead of a hyphen. MeegsC (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Possibly add an "and" in "However, in certain light conditions, at certain times in its moulting cycle or at greater distances".~~
Not sure where you're suggesting an and. However, I did add a common before "or". MeegsC (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I missed the or. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the behaviour section, the articles states, "It is the only species of loon able to take off directly from land," yet it also states, in a picture that is also in the behviour section, "Among the loons, the red-throated loon is exceptional in its ability to take off from very small bodies of water." Explanation?
Not really sure about this sentence, "Numbers counted in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service surveys in Alaska show a 53% population decline between 1971 and 1993, for example, and counts have dropped in continental Europe as well."
Changed to ...and survey count numbers have dropped in continental Europe as well.
"Because it tends to migrate close to shore—generally within 20 kilometres (12 mi) of land—it may be detrimentally affected by the construction of near-shore wind farms;[48] studies indicate a high level of avoidance of wind farm areas, though deaths due to direct strikes with the turbines appear to be uncommon." - How uncommon?

Those are all my nitpicks, it looks pretty good otherwise though. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: It seems that the use of en dashes or em dashes is inconsistent. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just mdashed them all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It looks like it is good to go, although I do have a slight problem with the use of to and then the em dash, but it is grammatically correct to do what you did, so it is fine. I just don't like the look of it. Anyways, it is good to go. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

This looks very good.

I'm not a fan of using a master's thesis as a source
Casliber found this one. He's been through this wringer a lot more regularly than I have, so I'll defer to his experience! MeegsC (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, generally when I have found theses, the material often ends up in a subsequent paper that is published in a journal. But unfortunately this is not always the case. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship does not preclude us using them, and the material it sources is not extraordinary, which is why I felt okay using it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps mention that they have webbed feet (palmate feet - 3 forward facing toes connected by webs and a rear facing toe -as all Gaviidae - Cramp p.42)
This information is already in there! It's in the description section. MeegsC (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I missed it. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What colour are the legs and webbed feet?
Added this information — plus eye colour, which was inexplicably missing. MeegsC (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You now mention the eye colour three times in the description section: "Its irides (sic) are carmine-red to burgundy in color" - "and the iris is reddish." and "Its eyes are reddish-brown," - this seems slightly excessive :) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Okay, removed one. The "reddish-brown" refers to youngsters, so I've left that. MeegsC (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At what age do they first breed? HBW alive has Sexually mature at 2–3 years. Cramp p. 49 has unknown but probably 2-3 years. BTO has 3yr
Perhaps mention that the full adult plumage is only obtained in their 3rd year (Cramp p.42)
Perhaps add that the eldest/dominant sibling is highly aggressive. If food in short supply only the dominant receives food. It is rare for both chicks to survive. (Cramp p.48 top left)
The distribution map indicates that birds breed in Japan. The HBW alive map doesn't show this.
The map should indicate that some birds breed in Scotland - BTO has 1300 pairs in 2006
Arbitrary but WP:BIRDS suggests placing Food and feeding section after the Breeding section
A good number of our current FA bird articles have the food and feeding section first; I'm tempted just to leave it where it is.
byproduct is usually hyphenated
Huh. The Oxford English Dictionary shows no hyphen, but Merriam-Webster does. Perhaps it's a regional English difference? MeegsC (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Feeding section and the Breeding section both discuss feeding of the young. eg "For the first few days after hatching, young red-throated loons are fed aquatic insects and small crustaceans by both parents." vs "Both parents feed them small aquatic invertebrates initially, then small fish for 38–48 days." Perhaps better to combine in the Breeding section.
"small fish for 38–48 days" - but probably not small for the whole period - Cramp p.46 states that the young eat like adults after 28 days.
Note that Cramp p.48 top left has "carrying on back rare."
Ref 61 "Red-throated Loon – BirdLife Species Factsheet" - broken link
Fixed. MeegsC (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 62 Leighton, F. A. (2007) - broken link
Fixed. MeegsC (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

I've read through Aa77zz's thorough review above, and i can't see anything I want to add to his comments. Nothing looks like a deal-breaker, so I'm happy to support now in anticipation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Hi MeegsC, seems like a long time between drinks at FAC for you so, just to keep you on your toes, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we promote this. One of the reviewers above might be able to do it, or you can leave a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Earwig's Copyvio Detector is clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas Will be back to real internet tomorrow, so will be able to address remaining issues... MeegsC (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting consistent. I sentence-cased all the journal titles as MeegsC has difficult access. two-digit page ranges, authors, locations all consistent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FN 9 - used once - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FN 36 - used once - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FN 47 - used once - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FN 73 - used once - material faithful to source. not a great source RS-wise but material uncontroversial and straightforward. And helps article be comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. happy with spot checks etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.