Talk:Storm-petrel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Storm-petrel has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Storm-petrel is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:

[edit] Is

Is "Stormy Petrel - Hydrobates pelagicus" a different species from the one in the header of this article, and may we therefore expect another article disambiguated or otherwise? --Dieter Simon 17:38 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Dieter. You have been confused by a little bit of classic Anglo-centrisim. Hydrobates pelagicus is properly known as the European Storm Petrel but. with their usual unconcern for the rest of the word, those evil Europeans try to monopolise the term. I'll give you London to a brick ... er ... I mean Melbourne to a lump of mortar ... that it's just about universally known as the simply the "Storm Petrel" in the part of the world where the bathwater goes round the wrong way. Tannin

Sorry, Tannin, if I sounded a bit facetious. No, it wasn't the name of Storm petrel I was querying, why 'Storm Petrel' should be a red link in an article about Storm petrel, that's all. I have been here too long to think in German or any other European language. And I must put to the test water gurgling away the wrong way out of a bathtub, next time I am in Oz. And I do like Melbourne, it's a great city. Dieter Simon 23:00 24 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't think I can do the GA review, since I've contributed to this on-and-off, but just a couple of points.
  1. There are several paras where the ref is at the end of the first sentence, and there is nothing at the end. If the ref refers to the whole para, wouldn't it be better at the end, to make that clear?
  2. (purely personal preference/prejudice) I always think reflist|2 looks neater

Jimfbleak (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am happy to report that this article has been promoted to Good Article status. This is how the article, as of February 4, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

  1. Well written? Pass. It's clear, understandable, and pleasant to read.
  2. Factually accurate? Pass. The refs support the article, and nothing seemed incorrect to me (although I'm not an expert).
  3. Broad in coverage? Pass. It covers the information that I wanted to know, without leaving out anything important.
  4. Neutral point of view? Pass. As this isn't a very controversial topic, this was probably easy to do.
  5. Article stability? Pass. No edit wars, no major changes recently.
  6. Images? Pass. Gorgeous images. I particularly like the variety of images, from the "bird in hand" to "walking on water".

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to the Good Article Reassessment process. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. This is a beautiful article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)