Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Procellariidae

Procellariidae

Self nom. Another seabird article, another bird family (after albatross). Hopefully you'll find it better than the albatross article, well referenced and illustrated. There are a few redlinks left (individual procellariid species) that will be completed by the end of FAC. It's been to peer review and had the kinks knocked out, and I hope you can support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Image:Procellariidae phylogeny.JPG should be SVG. WP 09:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment why does it matter if it's jpg or svg? and I don't think that's a valid ground for objection.Rlevse 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are opposing because of an image format? Sorry but all I can do is laugh. LOL Joelito (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SVG is better because it can be resized without distortion, but it's usually not a big issue. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the first time he does that. It is disrispectful of people's work. Although i would agree that it should be PNG or SVG. But objecting because of that... WP and Tony1 are two objection bots on FAC. ---Pedro 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I caused any offence. Images can be as important as the text in an article and SVG is recommended. WP 00:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an image upload recommendation, not a FA criteria upon which to base an objection.Rlevse 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some nice person has created a new SVsomething to replace my jpg and hopefully that has resolved that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same comment on my recent FAC. It should be noted by WP and those that push this - there is a significant difference between an SVG and a JPG or PNG. SVG is based on Vector graphics and computes the image using math. This is very different from a JPG or PNG that is based Raster graphics or pixels. This is why SVG graphics resize without quality loss. This is all great if you have a vector graphics editor and want to recreate the images from scratch. You can not convert one to the other. I think opposing based on this makes no sense. It might be worth a comment if that. The PNG format does not always produce the smallest file size and in many cases JPG is a better option. It is even recommended that "only convert it to PNG if this reduces the file size without causing artifacts". See Wikipedia:How to reduce colors for saving a JPEG as PNG on how to convert for the best results. Again, this is a recommendation and should only be a comment. Converting JPG to PNG is not a huge deal. Forcing someone to create a new graphic in a completely different format (SVG) is nonsense. Morphh 23:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Morphh. This should not be a issue in FACs. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support : unbelievable job! Congrat! NCurse _work 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I need to finish the copyedit before I can support this, but this is great work. One issue: how can it be that the birds must be able to "run... in order to take off", and yet they can't even walk easily ("many species move around on land by resting on the breast and pushing themselves forward")? This apparent inconsistency should be addressed. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I imagine it is much easier for them to run while their wings are flapping in an effort to take off than it is to walk without any use of their wings, due to the fact that they would have to support their entire body weight. Kaldari 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The arranement of the legs far back on the body (like on a loon) is good for swiming but clumsy in walking. When taking off, though, that frantic back and forth that doesn't suit slow walking well works pretty well in running, though they are still not exactly roadrunners - they can't turn or anything, and they do indeed use their wings to support their body. It's actually quite hard to describe but makes sense if you see it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes sense, but is there any way to say something like that in the article? Perhaps not. Anyway, support. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 06:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent article, very excellent. I wish I knew why WP is so obsessed with the SVG format though. --PresN 21:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work! Definitely feature article quality. Kaldari 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak object~~ sorry, lovely/excellent article, but species is a stub! We don't like lists, but we could have a text discussing some species and differences between them.---Pedro 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which species? Also, consensus seems to be that FAC is meant to critique only the article listed, not any of the articles it links to—even red links in the FAC aren't a big deal. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means the species section at the end. I think I agree with Petaholmes and Pedro and have moved it to the taxonomy section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
changed to support although that was not my idea, it think it is ok.--Pedro 10:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support : Looks great. Only thing is I suppose I would have not used heading 'biology' where it is but had most of the subheadings under it as headings, leaving biology to cover things like breeding and flight, with taxonomy separate (and have subeahdings of the individual groups and cladistics as it is a pretty long paragraph. However, this is a style thing and pretty minor. cheers, Cas Liber 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a question/comment, it seems kind of odd to have a whole section on species that only includes a link to the relavant article, could this be {{main}} in taxonomy or expanded a bit to briefly describe the 8 genera?--Peta 04:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Rlevse 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me. Rebecca 03:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great article which is well referenced as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One tiny problem I spotted in reading through - in the taxonomy section, the following reference to the genus Pterodroma: "The species vary from small to medium sizes (26-46 cm), and are usually uniformly black on their upperparts and white or pale grey below", which I don't think is true? SP-KP 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was misleading - I have changed it now so that it talks about morphology rather than plumage. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That fixes it. Strong support SP-KP

Support : Cool article. Will include extinct taxa in species list. Dysmorodrepanis 23:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! All extinct (including fossil) taxa I know of are remarked upon. As information collects, the evolution of genera could be discussed in their respective accounts, e.g. the fossil record of Puffinus has a fairly interesting story to tell (as a side note, I have chosen "Neonectris" instead of Ardenna as Penhallurick/Wick's taxonomy has been heavily criticized - Emu 105:181 -, so I wanted to be on the secure side). I also played around a bit with List of Procellariidae. If it is OK, I will as a rule of thumb include Recent extinctions in family lists and genus lists, and subrecent and earlier ones only in genus accounts, as per the two articles I have just linked. Fossil genera would go to family/order accounts though, as their importance lies in discussing higher-level taxon evolution.

By the way, Bulweria is a redirect. Dysmorodrepanis 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]