Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mallard/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2017 [1].

Mallard[edit]

Nominator(s): Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a bird species that has a wide range and is found in a lot of places. I think it is close to FA-hood, and is an interesting article as well. It has also undergone a Peer Review and copy-editing by the Guild of Copy Editors. I hope you enjoy reading the article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One comment: Why are all those images being shoved in the taxonomy section and the description is blank? LittleJerry (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: I have repositioned the images. Thank you very much for your comments! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article at peer review and all of my concerns were addressed. I think it meets the FA criteria. Good luck with getting it promoted! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 12:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@N Oneemuss: Thank you very much for your review, and support. I hope you have a great day/night! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

I'll comment in more detail when I've had another read, but two things for now. I don't think "invasivity" is a real word, and if it is it has limited currency; try "invasiveness" or "invasive species". More importantly, you have nothing on diseases or internal or external parasites despite there being much accessible stuff on this well studied species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Why the full date for the Jobling reference? It's a book, right?
Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide if you're giving locations for books or not. In the first two book references - you have one with and one without a location. Be consistent
Fixed. No source now has any publication location. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 10 (Hensleigh Wedgewood) needs full publication information
  • Per the MOS, we dont' use all caps even when the source does. This would be current ref 12 (Steadman) and any others in the sources
Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with this. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 16 (Delacour) needs full publication information
  • What makes "Station, Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research (1984). Annual Report" a high quality reliable source?
  • Moulton, Judy (current ref 31). Xlibris is a self-publishing company. Not reliable unless Moulton is an expert in the field of Mallard studies. Also it's ISBN is wrong - see world cat entry, which ... lists it as a juvenile book. Not high quality for THAT reason. (The minor issue of the full date being given is just icing on the cake)
  • Current ref 33 - What does BTO stand for?
British Trust for Ornithology. Spelled out. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 39 "Carver" is published by Lulu.com - another self-publishing company. NOT high quality, needs to go. (Hint - the lack of libraries carrying the source is a dead giveaway.)
  • The ISBN for current ref 40 (at world cat) is for the 1987 Dover reprint - did you consult the reprint or the original. If you consulted the reprint, you need to indicate that.
  • Current ref 46 (Madge) why the full date, it's a book, right?
Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 52 - "International Wildfowl Inquiry..." - lacks a publication date. And what/who is CUP?
I think you mean ref 53. I replaced the reference instead with this. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 57 - Winkler - why the full date? Also, the ISBN is wrong - is it this audio book at WorldCat? If so, why is this a high quality reliable source?
  • What makes http://www.elmwoodparkzoo.org/animal-mallard-duck.php a high quality reliable source? I could see maybe the San Diego Zoo as a high qualty one but ... not a small city zoo. And www.elmwoodparkzoo.org is the website, not the publisher, we need the publisher also.
  • Current ref 63 - Baldassarre - what is JHU Press?
It is John Hopkins University Press. Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 64 - the publisher is NOT Fish and Wildlife Leaflet - it's the Fish and Wildlife Service (of the US Department of the Interior). It's part of a SERIES titled "Fish and Wildlife Leaflet" of which series its number 13.
  • Current ref 65 Rappole - why the full date?
Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 69 (Sanilands) - who/what is UBC Press?
It is University of British Columbia Press. Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 71 (Chmielewski) - Author House is a self publishing service (see http://www.authorhouse.com). NOT reliable. (Hint - World Cat shows no libraries own it - that's generally a sign of trouble.
  • Current ref 72 - World Cat shows it as a "pictorial work" ... which usually means "coffee table book". What makes this a high quality reliable source?
  • Is current ref 73 (Ginn) a book? Does it have an ISBN/OCLC?
  • Current ref 77 (Dekker) - why the full date? This appears to be a painter's work on wildlife painting - what makes it a high quality reliable source?
  • Current ref 82 (Townsley) - why the full date? The ISBN is wrong - is it this book on World Cat? If so ... what makes this a high quality reliable source, since only one library carries it? It's also under the dreaded "pictorial works" classification and I'm betting this is another painter (given the introduction by Robert Bateman and the "palette" in the title.
  • I think we can find a better source for the fact that mallards are preyed on by "European herring gull, the wels catfish, and the northern pike" than the Reader's Digest Scenic Wonders of Canada. Again, not a high quality source for a zoology/animal article
  • Current ref 92 (Adams) - why the month year date for a book? And given its World Cat entry lack of libraries holding it I'm going to bet that it's self-published. Not a high quality source
  • Current ref 94 "Anas platyrhynchos" - www.iucnredlist.org is the website, we need the publisher
  • Current ref 97 lacks a publisher.
  • Current ref 98 "Agriculture" PediaPress - you do know that PediaPress is a press that reprints WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES! See http://pediapress.com. Not a reliable source.
  • Current ref 110 "Invasive alien bird..." the website is krugerpark.co.za. That is NOT the publisher. Needs fixing.
  • Current ref 111 needs to lose the all caps in AGREEMENT
Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 112 - http://www.mdga.co.za/code/environment/feb2011.html ... this is a marina association... not a high quality reliable source for a zoology/animal article. And www.mdga.co.za is the website, not the publisher, which is missing.
  • Current ref 118 - "Recovery strategy" - www.fws.gov is the website. We need the publisher
  • Current ref 120 - world cat gives an author which should be listed.
  • Current ref 126 - Digimorph.org is the website, we need the publisher
  • Current ref 134 "N.Y.), Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York; yuan, Guo li gu gong bo wu (1996)" I can't even begin to figure out how that got mangled, but it needs fixing.
  • Current ref 136 - one of the authors is not "Art, Albany Institute of History and" - corporate authors should be listed just "as is", not trying to force them into a "last name".
I have put it as a last name. Does it look good now? (An empty last name was giving an error, so instead of putting it completely in the first name, I put it in the last name. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The various sources for the "In art" section - how were the various specific artworks chosen to be listed in the section? Are they sourced to secondary works discussing how they impact on the mallard as a species? Or are they just randomly chosen from various listings of mallards in artworks?
  • The same sort of concerns for "In children's stories" section - the listing of Jemima Puddle Duck is just sourced to the Potter book - this doesn't show that secondary sources dealing with mallards have noticed these cultural depictions (and ... the Jemima example is about a domestic duck which has its own article ....so why is it here?)
  • Current ref 144 - this is an article in Field and Stream and it's got an author - all you had to do was scroll to the table of contents to find it. It needs full publication information - author, issue, pages, etc.
Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 145. First "Hunting mallards might cause the population to decline in some places, at some times, and with some populations." is not exactly a useful sentence. IT's completely wishywashy and doesn't give anything on what circumstances might cause decline. As it is, it's just padding. And the source is lacking a publisher, author, etc. Needs full publication details.
  • Current ref 149 - what/who is OUP? Also this is not consistent with the other refs in the article - which put the page number IN the citation, this one is using a different format where the page number is appended to the citation number in the article text. Needs consistency.
Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peking duck is a dish of roast duck from Beijing, China, that has been prepared since medieval times. It is today traditionally served with spring pancakes, spring onions, and sweet bean sauce.[150][151]" - unless I'm badly mistaken, Peking duck is usually prepared using the domestic duck, not the mallard. (I am aware that technically they are the same species, but we have an entire article on the domestic duck where this sort of trivia should go.)
  • Bibliography is usually reserved for books/works BY the article subject. A better heading would be "Sources" or similar.
  • I didn't see the Bagemihl source used in the citations - if its not used, it needs to be in a further reading section
  • Why is the Johnson and Sorenson ref listed in full in the citations (current ref 14) and again in the bibliography? No other source has this done.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations, as the two things showing issues are actually copying the wikipedia text (without attribution, it appears)
I'm going to have to oppose based on the many many issues raised above. Some of them are easy to fix, but there is no excuse for using THAT many self-published source - we have the full trifecta - pediapress, lulu.com AND AuthorHouse... that is a bad sign of sourcing problems. Frankly, on many of these, I think people just googled for information and took whatever came up. That's not a good way to research such a topic. The whole article probably needs the attention of someone who actually reads sources dealing with the mallard, not just using google books. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for reviewing this! I will address the issues. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, before you get to far into this - there are bigger issues than the tiny nitpicks. The problems of the self-published sources are a big concern. They need to be addressed. And I'm afraid I am concerned with how the research for this article was approached. On such a broad topic, the best way to approach it is to read a few book-length works on the subject. THEN, after those have been read (so that you have an idea of what the experts/scientists/etc consider important and not important) the article can start being worked on. Instead, I'm getting the impression that a "google-is-my-friend" approach took place here - going back to early June when the nominator began working on the article - I see a lot of adding citations, but not a lot of actually changing the information or adding of new information. In the archive, I note that someone brought up the concerns about the "in art" and "in children's books" I brought up, but the issues weren't addressed. Given this is a bird article, getting the advice of some of the bird wikiproject, especially of those who are frequent FAC nominators, would have been helpful. I see Jim's weighed in on some missing items above - my guess is that there is more stuff missing that needs coverage as well as some stuff that won't need coverage. I'm not a bird-writer, so I don't know what would be the go-to book for mallard behavior and ecology, but given the ubiquitous nature of this bird species, there really should be something to use to help cover the important topics that the experts consider important. It's never easy to work on a big topic article like this - they have their own issues. I don't want the nominator to waste time fixing the nitpicks when the big problems remain lurking and aren't addressed. It's going to take more than just fixing the issues I listed and saying "I replaced" - at the very least, we need to know that whatever was replaced was a high quality source. And to be perfectly frank - I spent over a hour this morning dealing with the above list. I'm not feeling like I need to go digging through the page history to figure out when an unsuitable source is replaced ... what it was replaced with. Please, for all the gods, say what you used to replace something with. And get some input from the several bird editors who frequent FAC... they can help guide you. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and ouch. I The article as it passed GA had the lulu.com work, the AuthorHouse work, and the PediaPress work in it. I'm not sure how it passed the GA criteria 2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". Not going to name names here but... ouch. Not good for the GA process here... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you very much for your comments! I was planning to fix all the issues mentioned by you, be they source issues or nit fixes. Earlier, when I started editing more, I knew less about reliable sources, meaning if a source was reliable, and which ones were allowed to be sourced and which ones were not allowed to be sourced. However, later I understood it completely, and if you see any of the articles that I sourced later, you might not be able to find any sourcing issue (brown pelican, for instance). I first check for reliable google books or research papers, and then search for reliable web source. I think by archive you mean PR and, in the PR, I think I have resolved the issues mentioned about the "in art" section: "three start with "mallards" and two with "the mallard", I amended that, and "children's books": " last story mentioned is notable enough to deserve inclusion", I removed that too (as for the prose, I also gave it to the GOCE). Even though I did not want to add the information about the domestic duck because it should not be in this article, I added it as per the GAN. "Please, for all the gods, say what you used to replace something with.", You mean I should write the references that I use as a replacement to unreliable sources, as Source review comments? Sure, I would write the references here. The moment I saw your Source review, I did feel that it might have taken you a long time to review this article, and I was going to apologize to you for that, and would not do it again (as I mentioned earlier, I did not know about sourcing proper sources earlier, but I source information properly now and would be able to fix the issues you mentioned). Also, I would be asking other bird editors if anything could be included in the article! Thanks again for your comments.
Side note, I know it is my fault for not having known much about sourcing, so you could blame me for that "google-is-my-friend" and anything like that, but anyways, you have taken so much effort on this review, and I really appreciate it! Also, I would not make such mistakes again (I am already citing reliable sources from quite a while now), and not let you down on any other article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's Comments[edit]

I know that the rule state that you can nominate a solo article if you have co-noms on, but you have two open co-noms and a lot of GAN articles on the go, do you not think you're taking a lot on? Anyway, this article. On a quick pass through...

  • A number of relatives are posited for the mallard in the text in the context of hybrids, but statements are made about its closest relatives within Anas in a purely phylogenetic context in taxonomy are absent. The article also mentions that the domesticated duck is treated as a subspecies in the taxobox but not in the taxonomy section.
  • Also, the paucity of morphological differences between the Old World mallards and the New World mallard demonstrates the extent to which the genome is shared among them such that birds like the Chinese spot-billed duck are highly similar to the Old World mallard, and birds such as the Hawaiian duck are highly similar to the New World mallard this is a run-on word salad conflating a number of ideas. First off the presence or absence of morphological differences is often essentially independent of the closeness of the genome - similar looking species can be distant genetically and highly variable species share similar genomes. Next, it jumps from an intra-species comparison to a interspecies one, and by the way the Chinese spot-bill doesn't really look that much like the mallard either.
  • The mallard is a medium-sized waterfowl species that is often slightly heavier than most other dabbling ducks. What is this trying to say?
  • Between three and four months of age, the juvenile can finally begin flying, as its wings are fully developed for flight This needs a heavy copy-edit to something like Flight feathers are fully formed after three or four months and this whole bit probably belongs in the breeding section in chick development, or should be re-written to be more focussed on description rather than a story about development.
  • The description section has mentions the non-breeding eclipse plumage but doesn't describe it. Big no. Also, why introduce the term eclipse plumage if you don't describe the breeding plumage as alternate?
  • Distribution and habitat - doesn't distinguish between natural and introduced range
  • In summary, the problems of mallards "hybridizing away" relatives is more a consequence of local ducks declining than of mallards spreading; I mentioned in the talk page that this is not the case in New Zealand and unsupported by the citation and it still hasn't changed much.

This was a quick pass through. This has a lot of work needed that should have been done before it got here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a more detailed read I'm going to oppose for now. I am reluctant to list every single little problem for the same reasons as Ealdgyth, because this article can't be fixed by piecemeal little tinkering and needs a comprehensive top to bottom rethink. My oppose is for three reasons, it has deep structural issues, it is not nearly comprehensive enough for a species this important and widespread, and there are writing issues (and as Ealdgyth notes there are referencing issues too). At a bare minimum it needs to address the following:
  • Comprehensiveness There are major missing sections. Migration is two lines! And almost entirely about North American birds. Habitat is superficial, with no details about seasonal changes and habitat usage. Breeding devotes three times as much content to rape than incubation and nestling stages. This is not balanced. No mention of moulting flocks and behaviour. Important subjects are introduced and not elaborated; like learning of migration routes. Other subjects like relationships with Anas, are mentioned tangentially.
  • Structure There are some issues relating to content being randomly placed around. Hybridisation turns up everywhere. Why is invasiveness a separate section when it touches the same subject as the preceding section? Why is the development of chicks section in description? Why is hunting separate from as food?

I would recommend withdrawing the nomination, finishing your existing FACs and then devoting your attention to this, and obtaining some mentoring to get such a difficult article over the line. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I think such issues as raised by Ealdgyth and Sabine's Sunbird need to be addressed outside the FAC process -- they've both offered great advice that I hope you'll take up -- so I'll archive this nom and hope to see it back at a later date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 12 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mallard/archive1&oldid=1136458322"