Wikipedia:Peer review/Fauna of Puerto Rico/archive1
I would really like to get this article to feature status. Any suggestions would be welcomed. Joelito (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article looks really good. A few suggestions, is there a map that could go in the origins section to give people a good idea of the geographical evolution of the islands or one that shows the current arrangement of islands? A see also section would be good at the end to remind the reader that there are a lot of lists on the subject like the List of endemic fauna of Puerto Rico, birds and amphibians and reptiles. A few more examples of fish might be good to give an impression of the diversity of species in the area and to increase the lenght of the section a bit. The lead should probably only be three sections. Referece 23 has no information. Finally the article could use a good copyedit by someone who hasn't worked on the article.--Peta 06:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, reference 23 got lost when you moved the fish section :-) But I will fix it don't worry. Thanks for all your suggestions. Joelito (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Very good. Excellent, in fact. My only suggestion on firts glance is moving the section on cave fauna down a bit in the invert section - starting with just one section of the fauna, then moving into the wider picture, that doesn't work for me. A few facts surprised me (the area of coral reefs seems very small considering how largte the island is. One other question - the statement and 42 of the species have been introduced, either directly or indirectly, by humans - I am assuming that indirectly refers to species that introduced themsleves after humans modified the habitat (like a cowbird did). Correct? Or perhaps you are refering to intentional versus accidental. In any case it could use clarifying. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Indirectly does refer to species that arrived after humans modified habitat such as the Shiny Cowbird. I will try to make this more clear. The invertebrate section is indeed a work in progress. I will write an introductory paragraph before going into details for that section. Joelito (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent work here Joel. Only the human impact section stands out a little bit as it lacks dabs and links; with "ortoiroid" red-linked and not mentioned earlier, the first sentence of it reads oddly. Also, I'm not sure about introducing specific numbers in the very first sentence of the article. In fact, you might just flip the first two sentences around. One small note: dependent clauses at the beginning of sentences I think should take a comma ("According to Rosen,..."). Maybe that's just me. Marskell 17:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestions Marskell, I will try to implement all of the suggestions as soon as I can. I am a little tight on time since I am constructing some laboratories for my students and I have some papers, assigments to grade. Hopefully I will be able to make the changes by the end of the week. Joelito (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent work here Joel. Only the human impact section stands out a little bit as it lacks dabs and links; with "ortoiroid" red-linked and not mentioned earlier, the first sentence of it reads oddly. Also, I'm not sure about introducing specific numbers in the very first sentence of the article. In fact, you might just flip the first two sentences around. One small note: dependent clauses at the beginning of sentences I think should take a comma ("According to Rosen,..."). Maybe that's just me. Marskell 17:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this article's become (in my opinion) a worthy FAC in less than a month. Quite informative, although it would be good if more users became active in editing it. --Gray Porpoise 02:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would be glad if more users became involved but sadly I doubt it will happen. Joelito (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)