Wikipedia:Peer review/Markham's storm petrel/archive1

Markham's storm petrel

I've listed this article for peer review because... it's my first "nature" article and I'd like to get some feedback before a FAC nomination.

Thanks, Therapyisgood (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Therapyisgood Thank you for your patience and I am sorry that it has taken this long for someone to review your article. I do not know much about this topic, so please consider this a non-expert review.

• "In Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1, author Carles Carboneras states Hydrobatidae probably diverged from other petrels at an early stage." Why is the source quoted in the article? Is this fact in dispute? Is it important for the reader to know where this information came from?
  • I have not been able to find another source, so cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• The taxonomy section uses "storm petrel" a lot. Are there alternate terms for the species that can be used?
• "Its name in Spanish literature is Golondrina de mar negra." This feels like trivia, especially as it has its own paragraph. This should be expanded, integrated into another paragraph or deleted.
  • Combined with other paragraph. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Sexes are alike." I don't know what this refers to.
  • Explained. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Spear and Ainley (2007) observed" delete the year, this information will be given in the citation.
  • Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Spear and Ainley (2007) from 18°N to 30°S, west to 115°, " again, remove the year.
  • Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• "A 2002 study in Marine Ornithology that examined a total of 95 Markham's storm petrels from Paracas Peninsula and La Vieja Island in central Peru, collectively, found its main diet by mass consisted of fish" I don't think you need to include the methodology of this study. Instead, just state what the study discovered, give the citation and if the reader is interested they can look at the study themselves. If this is kept, I would shorten this description.
  • Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Researchers Rodrigo Barros et al. (2019) described the bird as "one of the least known seabirds in the world"." This sounds like trivia again. I would incorporate this in another paragraph or delete.
  • Incorporated. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• " Barros et al. (2019), " again, delete the year and name the researchers or give a general statement like "based on the estimates of researchers from XYZ"
  • Cut year. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• In ref 25 and ref 30, the citation is not presented as a range of numbers. Why is this inconsistent with the other academic journals?
  • It's the specific pages I'm citing as opposed to the whole thing. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    • This is fine as long as it's standarized among all the references: either all the journal references only give the specific pages cited, or all the references need to give the page numbers of the whole article. 19:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Therapyisgood it's been a month since the last comment in this PR. Typically, PRs are closed if there have not been comments in a month. Can we close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Therapyisgood: See above. If there's another week without a response I'll close this. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's been more than a week. Asparagusus (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)