Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kakapo/archive1

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

The article was kept 13:13, 20 February 2007.

Kakapo

Review commentary

Messages left at Eudyptes and Birds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a fair bit of time trying to rework this article, and it needs more dedicated attention to bring it to current FA standards. First it is not cited in any meaningful way; second it is flabby - there is far too much text given to describing the conservation of the species - it's an interesting story, but this is an encyclopedia article; third, I'm not sure it's up to date in terms of current conservation plans and recent breeding. --Peta 22:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific journal Notornis 53(1) is a Kakapo special issue. The articles are available for free here but I don't know for how long (they wanted to make them pay-per-view starting 2007/01/01, so they could be closed off any time). These articles should enable one to sum up the entire conservation thing nicely and peer-reviewed-ly. Dysmorodrepanis 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least it needs inline reffing - agree the conservation section is very long.Cas Liber 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have reorganised page so there are more subheadings of other headings rather than just a series of headings, and added a bit on taxonomy. Refs increasing but still many more to go. Cas Liber 14:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), flabbiness (4), and not up-to-date (1b). Marskell 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some work done, some more to go from the looks of it. Marskell 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :(I'm a bit of an inclusionist but agree there is a huge conservation segment which should be hived off)Cas Liber 23:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Certain statements still need citation and fail to observe POV. A quick browse at the "Current status" section tells me this - if I took a more observant look it may reveal further problems. LuciferMorgan 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Agree about the citation needs, which are considerable. Would you consider highlighting the POV statements? cheers Cas Liber 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

~~Remove~~ some work done, but not nearly there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold; need to re-evaluate new work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove (sigh)~~ ~~Hold off (momentarily)~~ - I haven't had time to devote to this but have to concede the article probably has too much work needed to fix refs and address content before this FARC runs out of time. I started to tinker with it but have no time to tinker more now Cas Liber 05:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested samples of POV statements

"Though the future looks brighter..." - This statement is arriving at a conclusion. To arrive at one, one would have to formulate a considered opinion - all opinions need citations, thus avoiding original research.

(changed to Though the long term prospects of survival look more secure, which sums up issue succinctly)Cas Liber 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The surviving Kakapo population is intensively managed by the Kakapo Recovery Group" - by using the word 'intensively' one is suggesting their actions have been reviewed by an independent body and deemed 'intensively managed' by that group. Any evidence of such a report?

(agree. removed)Cas Liber 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Many faithfully watch over.." - The word 'faithfully' is POV here, as are adjectives in most instances.

(agree. removed)Cas Liber 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is hoped.." - By who? Who hopes?

(given the conservation bent of the article I would have thought that was fairly self-explanatory yet I concede it is not the best way to phrase it. Nothing better sprang to mind off-hand as yet)Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These new methods, while increasingly successful, have revealed that the semen from many males contains abnormal sperm or no sperm at all." - Revealed where? Do we have reports that back up this claim? Nature studies?

(One of the many refs missing. I had nothing to do with the initial writing of the article so cannot hlep on that one)Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the above examples help anyone wishing to improve the article during FARC and afterwards. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(That is a great help. Looking I can see how much the text needs to be tweaked)Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~-looking again one of the problems is the size of the conservation segment,however~~ conservation is a large part of the whole Kakapo story (and so the proportion of the article is about right??). Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that conservation is a large part of the Kakapo story and the proportion is roughly right. ~~I do think though that the New Zealand Wildlife Service and Kakapo Recovery plan sections can be trimmed, and the Current status and Future sections can be merged and then trimmed too.~~ CheekyMonkey 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. CheekyMonkey 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have introduced some citations and will trim the Conservation section into necessarily "heroic" story. :-) — Indon (reply) — 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update! - I have made a bulk change into the Conservation status. It has been trimmed into necessary facts and story, plus it is now backed with reliable sources. However, I have a terrible skill in prose (one has labelled me as a non-standard grammatical user), so could somebody please check the prose? — Indon (reply) — 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments not a lot of time to go through it today. Please check these headings for WP:MOS use of en- and em-dashes and caps WP:MSH

4.3 1950 — 1989 conservation efforts
4.4 Kakapo Recovery Plan SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Prose? — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update (citations) more inline citations have been provided. Please take a look for whom had voted for remove based on lack of inline citations. Are there still any statements needed for inline citations? — Indon (reply) — 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment great work on trimming and referencing the article. It'd be nice to have the map showing where they are put back in the article - I'll ask User:Grutness to update the old map. A section that describes the origin of its name and other cultural refs would be a good addition - but is probably not necessary for a keep. --Peta 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that the issues have been dealt with: it now has appropriate headings and subheadings; the POV sentences were re-edited; the conservation section was trimmed though remains a large part of the article but given the decades-long fight to preserve it I feel this is appropiately proportional to the issues; it now has inline references; there may not be as many as some other articles but this is a single isolated bird and so there will be lower numbers of resource material compared with broader topics; I have tweaked some of Indon's syntax after he highlighted this. Cas Liber 10:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The table in "Kakapo recovery plan" needs WP:MOS attention to units of measurement. The entire article should probably be reviewed.[1] I requested a copyedit at WP:LoCE before Cas Liber went through - is it still needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The table does not contain any measurements, m=males and f=females. I should put this definition, my mistake. Sorry, Sandy. — Indon (reply) — 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was that the last of it then? Keepable? Marskell 10:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indon requested (above) that others look at his prose; I'm unclear if anyone has done that yet. If his request has been addressed, I'm a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I went through after that. cheers Cas Liber 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs two more rounds of copy-editing by two editors just to make sure. If I have time later today, I'll do one of the rounds. — Deckill er 10:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited this one per request of Deckiller. I sprinkled some comments in the text, added a couple {{specify}} tags, and one {{fact}} tag. However, on revisiting the article, I notice that the citation I requested may in fact be covered by ref 3 (Powlesland, et. al). If that's the case, feel free to remove the fact tag. BuddingJournalist 04:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll complete the second round now. — Deckill er 12:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't my area of expertise, but I found some things that might fail Raul's Razor, and I made some pretty subjective tweaks. Someone familiar with the topic will have to give it a pass before we can close this as a keep. — Deckill er 13:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read most of this through, and it seems pretty good. The comments in-text need to be dealt with (as I had thought almost the exact same things prior to seeing them), and then I would support keeping it. Trebor 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep — once someone somewhat familiar with the subject fixes the in-text queries, I'll be a full keep. — Deckill er 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, we just need somebody with a little familiarity with the page. Marskell 13:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just arrived from a short weekend-break. I'll try to look into the sources and respond to the comments above. — Indon (reply) — 12:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the final work from Indon, this can go keep. Marskell 13:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.