Talk:Brown pelican/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This looks great at first glance; very happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for the review! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the lead: I'd avoid mentions of clades in sentence two (that's not something that's going to be familiar to many readers) and I think a little more on the physical appearance would be good. But that's just me being picky; if you'd rather keep the lead as it is, I certainly won't push it!
Removed clade mentions. No idea on what more to add about description, as there is so much about it in the description section that I am confused as to what I should pick for the lead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I recommend removing the formerly recognised subspecies from your bullet list? Perhaps it would be a good thing to mention immediately after the list, rather than in the list itself. (Actually, I see it is already there. Perhaps you could just add to that mention to note the authorities and years.)
Fixed. I was thinking the same that it should not be mentioned in the bullet list (while I was adding the Taxonomy section to the article). Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph starting "In 1931", can I recommend spelling out the full names of the people you are referring to? I am of the view that it makes the text a little more prosaic and accessible. Generally, I think the paragraph is a little dense. For example, "divergent" is unexplained jargon.
Yeah, so true. Fixed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nape", "gular pouch" and "central nape feathers" come across as jargon; links would be helpful! "irides" too; I confess I don't know what this means.
I linked nape, gular pouch, and irides. Could not find a link for central nape feathers, but reworded it to "feathers at the center of the nape", so would that be better (as nape is already linked)? Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't link "covert" at first mention, and I suggest that terms like "upperwing coverts", "uppertail coverts" and "median, primary, secondary, and greater coverts" will alienate non-specialists!
Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The upperwing coverts have dark bases marginal and lesser coverts, which gives a leading edge of wing streaky appearance." I'm struggling!
Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (linked to wikitionary). Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The brown pelican has a wide variety of harsh, grunting sounds such as the low-pitched hrrraa-hrra during displays.[5] The adult is silent and rarely emits a low croak" I'm finding this a little odd. It has a large array of sounds, is silent, and occasionally lets out a low croak? Are these not three separate claims?
Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pausing for now. Back soon. Enjoying it so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is wonderful that you are enjoying it! Just woke up; going to university, and would fix them as soon as I come back. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back.

  • "It is a rare and irregular visitor to south of Piura in Peru, where generally it is replaced by the Peruvian pelican. Although the brown pelican can occur as non-breeding visitors south at least to Ica during El Niño years,[18] and small numbers have been recorded from Arica in far northern Chile." Did you mean for this to be one sentence? I'm not clear on what the Although is doing.
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many Caribbean islands as far south to Guyana" Are you missing a word here? would "as far south as Guayana" not be preferable?
Woops! Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a strictly marine, very rarely inland species" Can it be both "strictly marine" and "rarely inland"?
Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resident and dispersive" jargon? Also "vagrant"
Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although rarely, inland vagrants, generally caused by hurricanes or El Niño phenomenon, have been reported from the Colombian Andes; first recorded in July 2009 at the Interandean Valley, in northern Ecuador, where they remained for at least 161 days." It seems like you're missing a word or two around the semicolon. This is a pretty complex sentence that you may want to consider breaking up a bit.
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The major courtship display such as head swaying, bowing, turning, and upright are performed by both male and female at the proposed nest site." I wonder if this could be rephrased?
Does it look better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels like information about colonies is repeated; could it not all be put in the same place? The second paragraph of "breeding", as well as repeating what is elsewhere in the article, seems to repeat itself a little, too.
Yeah, removed about colonies from the Distribution and Habitat section. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may be within 1 m (3.3 ft) of neighborhood" What does this mean?
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hybridization between brown and white pelicans is possible, and one such hybrid offspring was on display at the National Zoological Park in Washington D.C. in 1937." Two things: Is the second part important? And would this information not be a better fit in the taxonomy section?
Moved it to the taxonomy section. Second part meaning "in Washington D.C. in 1937"? If so, removed the state but retained the year (I think it would be better to mention the year when it was displayed, but if you suggest, I would remove it too). Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant "and one such hybrid offspring was on display at the National Zoological Park in Washington D.C. in 1937". This seems to be very specific information! If you think it's definitely adding something to the article, I won't push it, but I don't think I would include it, personally. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, my bad! Yeah, you are so right, and I have removed it now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1966, it became the state bird of Louisiana, to specifically designate the brown pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis occidentalis." It became the state bird to specifically designate a particular subspecies? I'm not sure I understand the claim.
Woops! Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether being the national bird of four nations should go before the information about Louisiana?
Moved it to the staring of the section. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a habitat of an endangered species of brown pelicans" Presumably there's only one species of brown pelicans?
Yeah, fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film is set in the Pacific Ocean near Australia, although the Australian pelican is the only pelican known to occur in that country." This is apparently unsourced. Perhaps it could be dropped to an endnote.
Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could mention the two universities together.
Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was listed under the United States Endangered Species Act" I assume you mean the species as a whole, but it was the nominate subspecies that was last mentioned, so this is unclear
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the colonies, I wonder if you are repeating information about pesticides/if this information could be usefully combined. (Possibly related: the one paragraph in "Status and conservation" is very long)
Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do people hunt it? Meat?
For feathers, added. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The brown pelican became extinct in 1963 in Louisiana.[5] From 1968 to 1980, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’ reintroduction program re-established the brown pelican in Louisiana, and improved reproduction and natural recolonization restored the population numbers in Texas and California." Again, I feel this is repeating material from earlier in the article.
Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could add a photo of Pelican Island? That might be a nice one for the conservation section.
Added! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A really strong article. I'll be back for a closer look at the sources and images, but hopefully this gives you some things to look into in the mean time. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please double-check my edits. I don't think there was anything too controversial... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are cool! Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment, since underutilisation of Commons media is something of a pet-peeve of mine; when available, we should always show images of the nest, netlings and eggs, and in this case, we have whole Commons categories of just that (except for eggs, sadly):[1][2] The article has no less than three repetitive images of the bird in flight, so it seems puzzling none of these have been used. There are also interesting photos of the bird diving[3], and no less than thirteen featured photos, none of which appear to be in use here (not that they should, but it indicates little scrutiny for images has been done). FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think FunkMonk's suggestion is a good one. I definitely think that we have to be careful to avoid overillustrating articles, but this one feels a little under illustrated, and it can be valuable to carefully choose pictures to show many features. (Feel free to ignore the Pelican Island suggestion of mine if there are more useful images that could be added on Commons.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks a lot FunkMonk and Josh Milburn, put in better images now and removed multiple flight images. I have not removed the Pelican Island image yet, as I do not think any other image might be suitable for that section, but if you say, I would remove it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for your diligence. I'll aim to have another look through the article, but I can't promise that it'll be very soon; I have a busy week... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it has undergone a ce from the GOCE, in the mean time, Josh. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh Milburn: I hope you are doing great! Could you check it out when you have some time? :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry for the delay; I've recently moved house and started a new job, so I haven't has as much time for Wikipedia as I would have liked. I'll hopefully get to this soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Milburn No issues buddy! I hope you are enjoying your time at your new home and new job! :D Also, have a great rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non reviewer comments[edit]

  • I came here after taking a look at Common loon, and somewhat unsurprisingly, I find similar issues; see this and this. Now Josh is a far more experienced reviewer than I am, so I will leave this in his capable hands; but I do want to emphasize to you, Aditya, the need to be more circumspect. I have seen you around; your enthusiasm is commendable, and the improvements you bring to natural history articles welcome. That said, you really need to be more careful. Careful in choosing your sources (which means looking for all the sources available, rather than googling the sentence you wish to cite). Careful in reading what they say, so that you are not using sources for things they do not support. And careful when paraphrasing, so that you do not accidentally include content in violation of copyright. The result above from the HBW is a really good example of this; the HBW uses a certain phrasing for brevity (leaves out some articles); you have reproduced that in a situation where it is incorrect. Please, take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. You may be a little slower if you are more careful, but Wikipedia will be the better for it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your inputs! I have no idea why fws would not be shown by Earwig when I searched for copyvio issues earlier. Most of the copyvio on your first link is due to the names of countries, regions, etc. along with a few words (trying to reorganize them though) and on your second link is due to scientific and country/region names only which I have no way to fix. Even on the common loon, other a line and a half, most copy vio was due to names, countries, regions, etc. which would keep the copyvio above 10% or 15%. Also, I have searched a lot of google books and other sources instead of googling sentences. I have also always cited information which I have written in the article (mentioned in the common loon GAR too), and not used them for something they have not supported (earlier in the common loon, I had no idea how to cite few words of text which appeared in the middle of the sentence while the first part be uncited). I do agree that one or two sources might go wrong in the process, which I would keep a more careful eye on, in the future. Thank you again for your comments! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a constructive attitude. One additional comment. The percentage on Earwig's tool is really only a rough indicator. Common phrases and scientific terminology are likely to be flagged no matter what you do. The way to avoid the problem is not really by using the tool on your own text; it's by being careful with your writing in the first place. Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through[edit]

Here are some thinks that I definitely think ned fixing:

  • "It takes about 63 days for chicks to fledge. Six to nine weeks after hatching, the juveniles leave the nest, and gather into small groups known as pods." Aren't fledging and leaving the nest the same thing? Is this not repetition of information?
  • "Honduras and also on the Pacific coasts of Honduras" Again?
  • Do we really need all those details about the moult? Is the source a reliable one?
  • "dispersive (move from the birth site or one breeding site to another)" Unclear.
  • "they are vagrant (found outside its usual range)" Singular/plural confusion
  • Some of the information in "movements" seems to repeat information that belongs above.
  • "The brown pelican is a piscivore, primarily feeding on fish.[29] It occasionally feeds on amphibians and the eggs and nestlings of birds (egrets, common murres and its own species).[30][31] Menhaden may locally account for 90% of its diet.[32] The anchovy supply is particularly important to the brown pelican's nesting success.[33] However, its preferred prey species are commercially fished.[34] Other fish preyed on with some regularity includes pigfish, pinfish, herring, sheepshead, silversides, mullets, sardines, and minnows. It sometimes also eats crustaceans, usually prawns.[35][36]" This could be better organised, and I'm not sure I see the value of the "commercially fished" comment. How about this: "The brown pelican is a piscivore, primarily feeding on fish.[29] Menhaden may locally account for 90% of its diet,[32] and the anchovy supply is particularly important to the brown pelican's nesting success.[33] Other fish preyed on with some regularity includes pigfish, pinfish, herring, sheepshead, silversides, mullets, sardines, and minnows. Non-fish prey includes crustaceans, especially prawns,[35][36] and it occasionally feeds on amphibians and the eggs and nestlings of birds (egrets, common murres and its own species).[30][31]"
  • "At the proposed nest site, major courtship displays such as head swaying, bowing, turning, and upright are performed by both the sexes" What "upright" mean in this context?
  • "It nests in secluded area, often on islands, vegetated spots among sand dunes, thickets of shrubs and trees, and in mangroves,[15] although sometimes on cliffs, and less often in bushes or small trees.[1] Nesting territories are clumped, as individual territories may be at a distance of just 1 m (3.3 ft) from each other.[39] Nests are constructed in trees, bushes, or on the ground in shallow scrapes or on mounds of debris with depressions at the top.[15][41]" Repetition about nesting sites
  • "It is now a staple of crowded coastal regions and is tolerated to varying degrees by fishermen and boaters." Does this belong here?
  • "on the berm crest of a beach where the animal had fallen" What is a "berm crest"?
  • "The brown pelican became extinct in 1963 in Louisiana,[5] after which between 1968 and 1980, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’ reintroduction program re-established the species, and improved reproduction and natural recolonization restored the population numbers in California and Texas." This doesn't read that well

These are some things that I think aren't great, but I'm not going to kick up too much of a fuss about at GAC level

  • On the lead: The opening line is a little odd. I'd say the best way to open would be something like "The brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) is a North American bird of the pelican family, Pelecanidae." I am also struck by the lack of physical description in the lead. Maybe a little about the cultural significance.
  • The last paragraph of the taxonomy discussion is really not so easy to follow. I appreciate that you're dealing with some pretty technical stuff, but it feels like it's jumping all over the place.
  • Perhaps the first paragraph of the description section could be split.
  • "A single adult pelican can eat up to 1.8 kg (4.0 lb) each day.[17] In populated areas the brown pelican can habituate to being fed or stealing scraps of fish.[34]" I'd shift that to the first paragraph of the section
  • A thought: you might want to consider a "relationship with humans" section; "Depictions in culture" and "Status and conservation" could go as subsections, and you could lead with a discussion of boaters/fishers tolerating them, people feeding them (from the diet section), and people hunting them/collecting their eggs (something interesting that I would give a little more prominence if I was writing the article myself).

The article is looking much improved. There's still a little bit of repetition, and I do want to take a good look at the sources and images, but we're moving in very much the right direction. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

  • I don't want to get too excited about formatting for GAC purposes, but...
    • "Museum, United States National (1941). Proceedings of the United States National Museum. Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 180." - is way off. The Proceedings is a journal; you should cite the particular article. The volume is here, which will allow you to chase up the reference and will work as a much nicer link than Google Books.
    • "Schreiber, R. W., Schreiber, E. A., Anderson, D. W., & Bradley, D. W. (1989). Plumages and molts of Brown Pelicans. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Contributions to Science, (402)." I'm also a little puzzled about this. There's a full PDF you can link to.
    • Similar issue with this one: "Lynch, Maurice P.; Lynch, Maurice P. (1998). Minding the Coast: It's Everybody's Business : Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference of the Coastal Society, Addendum Volume, 12–15 July, 1998, the College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. Coastal Society. p. 21."
    • Refs 48-53 could also do with being tidied up a little:
      • Schreiber, R. W. and R. W. Risebrough. 1972. Studies of the Brown Pelican. Wilson Bull. no. 84:119-135.
      • Anderson, D. W. and J. O. Keith. 1980. The human influence on seabird nesting success: conservation implications. Biol. Cons. no. 18:65-80.
      • Kale II, H. W. 1972. Florida Region. Am. Birds no. 26:751-754.
  • Removed the ref and a few predators. Unable to find even part of text anywhere. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pinson, D. and H. Drummond. 1993. Brown Pelican siblicide and the prey-size hypothesis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. no. 32:111-118.
      • Shields, Mark.(2014). Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America
      • Coker, R. E. 1920. Habits and economic relations of the guano birds of Peru. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. no. 56:449-511.
    • Again: "Anonyous (2005). Journal of School Leadership. Technomic Publishing Company. p. 334." Could you cite the article rather than the journal?
  • Is Animal Diversity Web a reliable source?
  • Is All About Birds reliable?
    • It's also cited here: ""Brown Pelican | The Common Pelican of America". 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-07-06. Retrieved 2017-07-06."
  • Done. Removed some nest information too, as I was not able to find it elsewhere. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is The Animal Files reliable?

From first look, the other sources look OK. I'll want to have a look into paraphrasing based on the issues identified above; I hope to find time to do that soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn Thanks a lot! Hopefully, all the issues are resolved! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Just a quick follow-up comment before I look at these properly: I wasn't really concerned about links for the journal/book sources, it was more about the formatting of the footnote! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Milburn I am trying to understand what you mean. :P Do you mean "formatting the references" (as there is only one footnote, so I guess you mean references)? Yeah, when I linked them to proper links, I generated them again, so I think they have proper formatting now! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Milburn Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry that I'm taking so long over this; I appreciate that it's rather bad form on my part. I started a new job last month, and I've much less time for Wikipedia than I would like. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Milburn No no, it is all cool, buddy! I thought you might have forgotten is all. Just thought if everything were fine, you could give it a go. I hope you are having a great time at the job. I hope you have a great day. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion request[edit]

I've requested a second opinion on this article as I have very little time at the moment, and so do not envisage being able to return to the review soon. As such, I'm offering others the chance to take up the review and offer comments, promote, or close as appropriate. My sincere apologies to Adityavagarwal; I appreciate that it is very poor form on my part to have withdrawn from the review. If no one takes this up, I will eventually find time, but I can't promise that it will be soon. :( Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn It is all cool! No problem whatsoever, as one might have huge amounts of work anytime in life, so it is very easy to get entangled with it. I hope you could review one of my other bird GAs in the future when I nominate one, and you are free from work. :D I would in fact also love to nominate any bird article for an FA (possibly this one itself?) in the future with you! Have a great rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • I feel like there's a better name out there for the Movement section, maybe like "Migration" or "Migration and vagrants"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a family, it is a species. So, like other bird species GAs, I do not think we need a cladogram! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For abbreviations, you may want to wikilink the full name and put the abbreviation in parentheses (but you don't have to)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a species be more divergent than the other? "the brown and the Peruvian pelicans were held to be the most divergent of all" I can't tell whether or not this means they're most closely related or most distantly related   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased. Actually, the brown pelican and the Peruvian pelican were found to be the most divergently related. Rephrased, looks better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Behavior section, I think the part where it talks about buoyancy should be moved to the Description section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77 I think all the comments are addressed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • ref no. 29 is missing authors (as far's I can tell, it's T. C. Michot and K. M. Bettinger), also for the url, you may want to do instead {{google books|plainurl=yes|id=|page=4}} so it loads up page 4 instead of the front cover (fill in the id parameter with the id specified in the url)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • you don't really need to define "berm" since it's wikilinked, but if you do you can just leave it as "a sand bank"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "United States" in the entire article except once at the very end of Status and conservation where you use "U. S." Also for future purposes it's "U.S." without the space as far's I'm aware   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woops, fixed! Absolutely thanks for the U.S. Manual of Style! Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77 Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are there any invasive species that go after brown pelicans (like cats)?
  • Are there any adaptations for diving? How does water not rush in through their nostrils? I found one source from 1939 "Functional Aspects of the Pneumatic System of the California Brown Pelican" but you don't have to do this if you don't want to   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77 Fixed the above comments! Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dunkleosteus77: might I suggest that you undertake the spotcheck of sources that Josh intended to perform in response to my comments above? This is now a solidly written article, but I believe the issues of close paraphrasing and precise source use have yet to be checked. Vanamonde (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brown_pelican/GA1&oldid=960003257"