Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macaroni Penguin/archive1

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 promoted by Karanacs 16:40, 2 June 2009 [1].

Macaroni Penguin[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Macaroni Penguin/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets criteria. Oringally brought to GA status by LNG123, I copyedited and added facts and had Sasata help out with some more facts and copyediting to round it out. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~I haven't consulted it, but I'm curious that the OED entry referenced (currently as reference 4) is for 'Raven'.~~ William Avery (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops, my bad. fixed now, derivation was under "macaroni" Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support William Avery (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Pictures are way too damn cute. This is an obvious attempt to sway the reviewers. Will strike Oppose if Surgeon General warnings for hyper-cuteness are placed below all images. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No way man! I always found Macaronis weird looking when compared against the much more photogenic Southern Rockhopper Penguin...now that is cute. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by NuclearWarfare - Two of the images are taken by a Wikipedian and published under a free license, and the other is a seemingly legitimate Creative Commons image from Flickr. Images are therefore good. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"are poorly known, the successful ..." Here you can put a period (or full-stop, depending upon your persuasion), a semicolon or an endash, but a comma just won't do. I would have just fixed it, but there are stylistic options... Ling.Nut (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (semicoloned) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Support. I don't expect anyone to find any hidden problems etc. If a big issue arises, please let me know. Otherwise +S. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Juliff, Peter (December 2008) appears to be an article from The Bird Observer – membership magazine of the Bird Observation & Conservation Australia (BOCA) organization. Not mentioned in cite. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra info added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comment COI - I did a superficial ce before this came to FAC, and I am a member of the bird project. Two minor points in refs to address jimfbleak (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~ref 44 has a different date style to the rest~~
- some of the isbn numbers retain hyphens, some don't, need to be consistent

~~Goshdarn. I thought brigherorange's script woulda got them. ok...~~ got the ref, though I do like that alternate form of accessdate which I hadn't seen before. Will have to hunt isbns - is there a place to find where the dashes go? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you object stiongly, it's easiest to take out the hyphens that are there, rather than add new ones. jimfbleak (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
Current ref 18 (Bernstein) is actually from Auk a journal. The section in the journal is Short Communications. Please fix to reflect its journal article status, not the website it's currently cited as. (sorry, fixed now (?)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes http://www.arkive.org/macaroni-penguin/eudyptes-chrysolophus/info.html a reliable source?~~

I removed the vague sentence it referenced - it is pretty obvious and I don't think it adds anything to the article really. I didn't put it in in the first place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Current ref 29, (Bost..) are you citing the abstract or the actual article? If the article, it should be formatted as a journal article.~~

the article has not been published in print,only online, so I cannot find a volume and issue. Is this what you mean? doi is now only link Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent and very informative article! My only problem is that "with a minimum of 11,841,600 pairs of Macaroni Penguins worldwide." and "estimated at around 18 million individuals" contradict each other. Reywas92 ^Talk 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - I was tempted to delete on but both were informative. One is a 1993 calculation, and the other 2004. There is also mention of a population fall. Hence the discrepancy. Shall I see if I can make it a little clearer? I was tempted to put "current" in but that is usually discouraged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do something. 23.6 million to 18 million is kind of a big difference - 25%. Maybe you can find further references with the most current numbers. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.