Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arctic Tern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Arctic Tern

Self nomination, although I would not have been able to get this to where it is without the help of others, including Sabine's Sunbird, Jimfbleak, MPF, and others. This article had a Peer Review which had comments and suggestions, which have been followed.

This article is comprehensive, because it covers all necessary areas. It is extensively referenced, with tens of inline citations from several different sources, including books, websites, and periodicals. It has images, all of which are from the Commons. It it well written. Surely this amazing avian should have its article featured. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the lead is a bit brief and the text is too broken up, especially in the description section where all the paragraphs are very short.--Peta 01:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead is now longer. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I did a bit of tidying, but everything is there now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Added minor stuff (description original ref., Sterna macrura as a long-time synonym (based on 1920s belief that Pontoppidan's bird was unidentifiable), comment on lack of subspecies.) Dysmorodrepanis 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object:

• Better explanation of "K-selected" in the lead would be nice. The current explanation, "devoting resources into a small number of young", doesn't really make sense.
• "It is unique to the bird"—does this mean unique to the species or each individual?
• Extensive use of simple sentences (see beginning of the first two paragraphs of the Reproduction section). More variety would be great (semicolons and dashes exist for a reason).
• "This way of feeding is quite difficult." Huh? If it's so difficult, why do they do it that way? Obviously it's not too difficult for them. Perhaps state the success rate or that no other birds do it; at this point, this sentence is virtually worthless.
• Consistent use or non-use of the serial comma would be a plus.

Not a bad article, but some things need to be fixed. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses in order to your points:

• I changed the lead. Is the explanation better now?
• I asked Sabine's Sunbird for clafification and we will be able to resolve that soon.
• I'd like to point out that using short sentences makes it easier to read. Still, I combined the first two sentences of the second paragraph into one sentence.
• The source in question (The Firefly Encyclopedia Of Birds ISBN 1-55297-777-3) says this on its page 269: "Young not only have to learn prey types and foraging habits, but how to plunge dive, a difficult task" (my emphasis). The source I used that plunge diving is difficult, but goes into no further detail about it. Nevertheless, I have commented out the sentence in question.
• That should be fixed.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have clarified the senetence but am wondering if perhaps it reads as if only Arctic Terns and passerines have identifying calls. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the phrasing elsewhere in the reprocuction section. Sentences now vary more in length. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'll try to review this later tonight. For now, why is the wingspan number in the lead different from the one in the body? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• That was probably a typo on my part. I changed it now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm... I'm still having trouble with the prose. It's not so much the use of short sentences (though more variety would be fantastic). A few examples:

• 3rd paragraph, "Reproduction" section: "Other birds can benefit from nesting in an area defended by Arctic Terns." This sentence is just tacked on to the end, with no attempt to connect it to the preceding thought. If included, this information should immediately follow discussion about the defensive prowess of the Arctic Tern, not the bluffing skills of the Common Tern. Incidentally, this is one of the several problems with the "This way of feeding is quite difficult" sentence. Better to keep it in the reproduction section.
• Later that section, we have "Both parents care for the hatchlings and bring them food for roughly a month." In the following paragraph, we have "Feeding by the parents lasts for a considerable time before being weaned off slowly." Aside from extremely vague language (what's the definition of "considerable" and "slowly"?), these sentences are related but are separated.
• While not as bad as the previous examples, "The average Arctic Tern in its life will travel a distance equal to going to the moon and back" could be better placed. The general discussion about the distance traveled is at the beginning of the paragraph, while specific cases follow. This sentence belongs in the former category, but is placed after the latter.

The goal here isn't to find a piece of useful information in a source and then stick in a relevant paragraph. The goal is to tell a story, naturally moving the reader from one thought to the next.

A few more specific issues:

• What is meant by "The population trend as a whole is not known." Is that the growth rate? Or the growth rate by region? Not too sure what is being communicated. Whatever it is, is it unusual? That is, is "the population trend as a whole" known for any other birds or animals? If not, it's probably not worth mentioning.
• "and different from that of the Roseate." Presumably all bird calls are different from each other. How are they different in this case?
• "The Arctic Tern is very similar to the Common and Roseate Terns." "Very" is useless here. However, my main issue is that this claim is made, but then the differences are described. Make a claim in the paragraph's topic sentence, and defend it.

Hopefully these comments make sense; sorry about the delay. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

• The sentence about Common Terns bluffing has been taken out.
• That sentence has been split and with the parts put into the following paragraph.
• That sentence has been moved closer to the beginning of the paragraph.
• The lead has been clarified to make it clear that the population trend for the species as a whole is being discussed.
• It has been clarified to make it clear that the calls of the Common and Arctic Terns are less different than that of the Arctic and Roseate Terns.
• I beg to differ. By mentioning only the differences, the article implies that what is not mentioned is (nearly) identical or very similar amongst the species.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my edit to the similarity/differences paragraph—the meaning is retained, but the flow is improved by making the first sentence connect directly to the rest of the paragraph. Also, I think I didn't make myself clear regarding my confusion with "population trend". Are you talking about overall population (as in numbers) or population distribution (as in geography)? The preceding sentence talks about distribution (southern part of the range), and the sentence before that talks about number (one million birds). Or do you mean both? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lead has been changed from "The population trend in the species as a whole is not known." to "The trend in the number of individuals in the species as a whole is not known." Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

After further changes, the last sentence is now "While the trend in the number of individuals in the species as a whole is not known, exploitation in the past has reduced this bird's numbers in the southern reaches of its range." Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I now support. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It is frequently being edited, I think the the article The Perfect Article said that it should not be frequently edited, with the exception of vandalisam. Daniel10 18:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That apparent frequent number of edits is only apparent for 2 reasons: First, it was only August that me and others started adding information to make it featured, which caused a large number of edits: second, those edits are due to me resolving objections or others making several section edits in a row due, all of which are mainly minor in impact. For example, when I made some edits in response to Spangineer I did it by using the edit this page button; had i used section edit I would have had to make several different edits with the same cumulative impact as the one I actually made. The article is not changing significantly from day to day. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Miss Madeline; these recent edits are not indicative of instability. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The article clearly says "Arctic Terns are K-selected". r-K selection is a relative, rather than an absolute designation, and it's a theoretical construct rather than an observation. Consequently, I don't think it appropriate to say that a species is K-selected, especially without a reference. I would be much more comfortable with "has been described as being K-selected" (REF), rather than is. Guettarda 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed the sentence to say that Arctic Terns trend towards K-selection. I also took the reference in the seabird article that said seabirds were K-selected and added it to that sentence. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Guettarda 00:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)