Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Birds
General information
Main project page talk
Naming and capitalization
 → Article requests
 → Spoken Article requests talk
 → Photo requests talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → New articles talk
Project portal talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Featured topics talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Country lists talk
Bird articles by size talk
Popular pages talk
Task forces
Domestic pigeon task force talk
edit · changes

The peer review department of the Birds WikiProject conducts reviews for all Bird-related articles. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Birds WikiProject.


Requesting a review[edit]

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{BirdTalk}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

Responding to a request[edit]

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.


Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{BirdTalk}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.


American Ornithologists' Union[edit]

I recently made additions to the page including some an organization infobox, structure, history and citations. I discovered that the previous version was a direct quote from a WP blocked site and wanted to improve the article. I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve it further or confirmation that it's OK for now (since it's listed as 'low importance'). DocTree (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Missing content comes first - think about adding - number of members (local branches??), variation in membership over its 128 years - circulation of publications, other significant collaborative books it has enabled publication of (bird guides etc.), political activism (e.g significant conservation areas etc. it has helped preserve) - I'll think more on this but these are the first things that come to mind. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That's quite a challenge you've given me. It's going to take lots of time for me to finish this article.
  • No local branches of the AOU. Most (all?) members are also members of local, collegiate, state or regional bird or ornithological organizations or of specialized groups focusing on a particular Class, Family, Genus or Species. I know membership numbers varied widely but obtaining those numbers can only come from AOU itself.
  • The number of distinct publications is huge but the number of copies of each that are printed is relatively small. Most are distributed only to members and to college and university libraries that subscribe. All bird guides for North America and probably for the western hemisphere depend on AOU pub's for standard naming conventions.
  • Until late in the 20th century, the AOU avoided political activism. Members wanted a purely scientific society. Studies and publications of the AOU were used to justify conservation legislation and the AOU supported conservation organizations in many ways including financially. As far as I can determine, the Conservation Committee wasn't a permanent committee of the AOU until the late 1980s and didn't do much until the 1990s.
The AOU is an "often quoted, rarely written about" group. The best source of information about them is their own journal, The Auk. I located a history of the AOU published for their 100th anniversary by a university press and one other book about ornithology in the 20th century that contains substantial information about the AOU. I requested copies through an inter-library loan program. That's pretty much all I can find for secondary sources other than announcements of conventions or release of books or updated taxonomy lists. I'll work on finding more as I have time to do so. Thanks again for looking over the article. DocTree (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Annual reports often have membership numbers in them - and sometimes societies will publish introspective articles on their history. "Activism" might be too strong a word, but there might have been some other proposals to governments etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article became a GA in 2007, but it was quite short back then, so I have expanded it much recently. Most undisputed info about the bird is now in the article, and very little is known about it apart from the old descriptions, so I have added many of those, since they are in the public domain. All important images of the bird, that is images thought to be based on live or stuffed specimens, and not simply copies of older images, have been included in the article. With the sources I have gathered, the article could go much further into the histories of the different specimens, paintings, theories and so on, but not much more can be said about the bird's biology, apart form maybe the complex history of classification. There's probably a lot to write about popular culture also. It could be nice to get it to FA, but I've never done that before, so I'd like some help to get on the right track of what would be appropriate to do with the article from here.

Thanks, FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC) The layout, content, prose etc. are in general good. I thought that the most important way that the article could be improved was with regard to the referencing:

  • The references need to be in a consistent form.
I added this[1], and apparently it'll summon a bot that fixes it... If not, I'll of course do it manually.
Just finished doing it manually, should fix the three points below.
  • Dates should all be in the same style.
  • Multiple authors need to be laid out consistently. (Current references 42, 45, 86 and 90 exemplify this point)
  • I was told elsewhere that it was not correct to mix templated and untemplated citations.
I've used the cite doi template wherever I could, so I guess I'll go with templates...
  • Some of the paragraphs do not have a citation at the end. I always try to end a paragraph with a cited statement. (I might be wrong here and this may not be a requirement.)
I usually do this, but for example when a sentence follows a quote, and the source for the quote and the sentence is the same, what should be done?
  • Some facts have no citations, "No fossil remains of Dodo-like birds have ever been found on the island" for example.
This should be fixed now, please point out if I've missed something, or if something seems odd.

Some of the image captions could be improved, "The skeleton put together by Richard Owen from bones found in a marshy pool on Mauritius, Natural History Museum" for example makes it sound as if the Natural History Museum is on Mauritius.


Some other points:

  • "According to most renditions, the Dodos had greyish or brownish plumage, with lighter primary feathers, and a tuft of curly light feathers high on its rear end." - I don't think "rendition" is the right word here and be careful with singulars and plurals.
  • "One of the most detailed descriptions is by Sir Thomas Herbert from 1634, who had visited Mauritius" - Awkward - the clause should be by the noun to which it refers.
  • "Painting of a Dodo head by Cornelis Saftleven from 1638, which is the last illustration of a Dodo not copied from earlier work" - Awkward.
  • "According to this claim, the gaping nostrils often seen in Dodo paintings were thus depicted due to drying in stuffed specimens." - Awkward.
  • "However, this account is problematical, since it also mentions the bird had three toes and no tongue, unlike Dodos, and it was most likely mingled with that of a cassowary." - This sentence is unclear.
  • "Interaction with humans" This section has too many short paragraphs which makes it scrappy.
  • "Though Mauritius had previously been visited by Arab vessels and Portuguese sailors, none of them left any known records of encounters with Dodos. The earliest known descriptions of the bird were made by Dutch travelers. However, few contemporary accounts are reliable, as many seem based on earlier accounts." - This paragraph is contradictory and unclear and the word "known" occurs twice in close proximity.
  • "According to Julian Hume, the following part of this journal may be the first mention of Dodos, referred to as penguins, a word not used for penguins at the time" - Another awkward sentence that needs clarification.
  • "Mascarene" - you could explain this name.
I've now inserted a lot more info about the island itself, its fauna, name, and what the Dutch used it for.
  • "Two live specimens were taken to India in the 1600s according to Peter Mundy, and one of them likely depicted in an Indian painting." - This sentence is either ungrammatical or awkward, depending on how you read it.
  • "Extinction" - The word "humans" is mentioned three times in the first couple of sentences.
  • "After the castle was occupied by Denmark in 1702" - You presumably mean Danish troops.
  • "Clark, explained his procedure to The Ibis:" - I realise that "The Ibis" does not describe a bird but perhaps you could clarify this, and wikilink it too.
  • "A white bird on Réunion was first described as follows in 1625 by Mr. Tatton, the Chief Officer of Captain Castleton:" - Was the ship called the "Captain Castleton"?
The source wasn't clear about this, and it isn't really important, so I removed it.
  • "The ibis was also reassigned to the genus Threskiornis, now combined with the specific epithet solitarius from the binomial Raphus solitarius, which was coined by Baron Edmund de Sélys-Longchamps in 1848 for the white dodo." - This sentence is too long and convoluted.
  • "It rampant appears on the coat of arms of Mauritius." - Awkward.
Thanks for the thorough review! So I figure I'll address your points, and then perhaps make a comment to each of them in bold? Junglejill will be copy-editing. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)