Talk:Great cormorant: Difference between revisions

My evaluation of this article

As part of that course, I wrote ~300 word evaluations of various bird articles on wiki. My evaluation of this one is reproduced below, which is just my thoughts about possible improvements and things the article does well.

This article on the Great Cormorant is decent, but nothing special. It has most of the headers expected of an article on birds - Description, Distribution, Behavior, and Relationship With Humans - though it's lacking a section on Taxonomy. There are some gaps and missteps in citation - some claims are clearly marked [Citation Needed] or [who?] , and elsewhere a source is referenced using parenthetical citation instead of the accepted Wiki footnote format. One photo's caption reads "Photo by Mahi Goula and George Parchas[8]", which seems unnecessary and a bit messy if you already have the citation linking to the picture's source. The article has a nice taxobox and a wide variety of images, but the images themselves aren't really organized in any meaningful way. Instead of being used to enhance their relative sections, the images in the article are just there for the sake of having pictures. It would be better to include them in the photo gallery at the end of the article instead of placing them in the body. One of the picture captions references "Breeding Plumage", but the article doesn't explain what that is. Looking at the edit history, I'm starting to notice that certain users tend to show up again and again in different articles. I recognize one "Jimfbleak" as a Project Birds contributor, so that makes sense. I also notice an abundance of edits made by bots - usually reversion of the article to a previous form after some sort of vandalism or unconstructive edit. The talk page is completely empty, which is a bit concerning. --WolfyFTW (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A few good points, yes, there should be a few select images to illustrate the text, not just decorations on the page. I don't think a large gallery is necessary, just go to wikimedia commons if you want to see a whole lot of photos. I have seperated the gallery into two parts, the first a few images that show different aspects, that could be used to illustrate the article when it is expanded a little more, a second a whole pile which I think are a bit superfluous to the article and should be removed altogether. Also the albino photo and 'variations' section, while very interesting (and a good photo), doesn't really seem appropriate for a species article - don't all species have Albinos, maybe just put it in the gallery. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Images

One picture might not be a Great cormorant: The picture of the "Great cormorant in Santa Eularia des Riu, Spain". It's rather Phalacrocorax aristotelis I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.187.109 (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Phalacrocorax carbo Vic.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Phalacrocorax carbo Vic.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 9, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-09-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) is a widespread member of the cormorant family of seabirds. It breeds in much of the Old World and the Atlantic coast of North America. It can dive to considerable depths, but often feeds in shallow water. It frequently brings its prey, mostly fish, to the surface.Photograph: JJ Harrison

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cormoranteatingfish.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Strange statement?

in section 'Food and feeding':

"About 60% of dives are to the benthic zone and about 10% are to the pelagic zone, with the rest of the dives being to zones in between the two."

Wikipedia's definition of pelagic zone is '(all the water, every depth) between surface and bottom' (and benthic zone is bottom) - so talking about 'an inbetween' between them cannot make any sense??

194.113.247.210 (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)