From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • There is a "citation needed" tag.
    • damn, forgot about that one. I'll do some searching...we are contemplating getting rid of material if we can't find a source comparing pelican species numbers..I've searched high and low and removed what I can't source. Have found some different bits and pieces to add instead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • lede
  • "Long thought to be related to frigatebirds, cormorants, gannets and boobies, and tropicbirds, pelicans appear most closely related to the Shoebill and Hammerkop, and Long thought to be related to frigatebirds, cormorants, gannets and boobies, and tropicbirds, pelicans appear most closely related to the Shoebill and Hammerkop, and are classified in the same order (Pelecaniformes) with these unusual birds as well as ibises, spoonbills and herons. as well as ibises, spoonbills and herons."
  • - I'm not exactly clear what this sentence means. Is classified in the order of Pelecaniformes with these unusual birds (does this mean the Shoebill and Hammerkip) and ibises, spoonbills and herons are also classified there?
    • generally yes. Originally ibises, spoonbills and herons were in Ciconiiformes but are now known to be closer to Pelicans. So it is debatable whether they go in Pelecaniformes or in their own order Ardeiformes - the former seems to have more sway. I've reworded - is it clearer now? Can play with it some more if you think it needs more tweaking. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Etymology
  • "and was applied to both the pelican and the woodpecker,[3] itself derived from the word πελεκυς pelekys meaning "axe" - meaning woodpecker is derived from the word πελεκυς pelekys?
  • Is there any explanation for all this reclassification?

(will continue)

  • looks good, great pictures. Worst problem is the "citation missing" tag.

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • ok. tag and info has been removed. Very nice article.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    B. Remains focused:
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Wonderful article. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Brown Pelican population[edit]

I do have a question regarding population numbers of this species. In the article it quotes an estimate of 650,000, for which I have also found a reference here. However, the estimate is 250,000 for the US and Caribbean and 400,000 for Peru. Does the latter figure really refer to the Peruvian species now it has been split from the Brown? Or are there really 400K Browns in Peru as well as the Peruvian Pelicans there? Maias (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am suspicious it is both - the bird guides stated the Peruvian was more populous down there. Also saw a popo estimate for Peruvian - will fetch. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Update - this confirms it's both. The US gov't paper does not accept the split (interesting reason given in beginning of report), and gives numbers of thagus as anywhere up to possibly 1 million birds (though 400,000 is mentioned, along with low 200,000s for US subspp.) - so we can use to mention both taxa in this article I guess. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. They take a conservative approach with the taxonomy; apparently noone has looked at the the difference between the Brown and Peruvian at the molecular level - at least not by 2009. Maias (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Rejigged now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)