Wikipedia:Peer review/Happy Feet (penguin)/archive1

Happy Feet (penguin)

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd really like this fascinating article to reach the quality of a featured article.

I'd mostly like feedback on the writing, mostly on how to get it to flow well and the grammar.

Thanks, ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Generalissima

This is really well-written and well-formatted. The whims of FAC can be unpredictable, but I think this will be well-received there. Some thoughts, in increasing order of nitpickyness:

• There are a couple of citations that are cited out of order
• Avoid using "he" at the beginning of a paragraph instead of his name (eg; In the zoo he had a bed of ice to sleep on -> "In the zoo, Happy Feet had a bed of ice to sleep on". But don't use his name too much - it might be better to use "the penguin" at times.
• Some passive voice which can be avoided:
  • This was watched by about 100 people through the operating theatre's window -> "About 100 people watched this through the operating theatre's window".
  • When Happy Feet was found at Peka Peka Beach by a Kāpiti resident while walking her dog -> "A Kāpiti resident walking her dog found Happy Feet at Peka Peka Beach"
  • He was given a 50 per cent chance of survival - Might be best to say who estimated this - zoo veterinarians I assume?
  • The gastroenterologist John Wyeth, who specialises on humans, was brought in to help with Happy Feet I assume it was the zoo who brought him in? If the sources don't say, you can keep the passive voice here.
  • There's some more passive voice sentences that can probably be reworded; in general I try to only use it if the source doesn't actually say who did something, or if it's important to draw attention to something in particular.
• The male bird was initially estimated by an expert to be about three years old, and further analysis has suggested that he was about 11 months old at the time of his arrival The "and" here makes it seem like these two statements aren't in conflict. "but" or simply a semicolon would make this more readable.
• morning of 24 June Happy Feet I think there should be a comma here
• Ditto with On about 27 June a penguin advisory committee
  • Also, there's a couple of short sentences in a row there; it might flow better if you have "experts from Wellington Zoo, DOC, Te Papa and Massey University debated on whether the penguin should be released or kept captive".
• who was a juvenile with a height of about 1 metre (3 ft). you can drop "who was" here.
• Surgery was considered to be a 'worse case scenario' due to the potential dangers of it - I don't think "of it" is needed here
• Aptenodytes forsteri should be italicized in the title to Miskelly et al. 2012
• You might be able to get away with a fair use image here, as it's unlikely someone would be able to track him down. Also might be worth shooting some emails if you can find any photographers who might be willing to release a photo into PD

@Panamitsu: That's all from me! Good luck on this, it's a great article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the suggestions. I've incorporated all of them into the article. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Jens

My general advice is that you should use the scholarly source (Miskelly et al. 2012) whenever possible, as it is more reliable than the newspaper articles. This means: re-read that source carefully again, add anything from that source that is interesting and missing (you go into tiny detail in the "costs" section, so no reason not to include those other details). Also, check if the article reflects what's stated in the paper, and cite the paper where appropriate. I am saying this because if I read the paper, I see some inconsistencies with your article. My points below are based on the paper.

• State that it was determined to be a male only after DNA sexing of a feather. That's interesting to point out.
• You mention wood in his stomach, but the paper says that none had been found.
• The zoo pumped water into his throat to flush the sand out of his oesophagus,[18][20] and put him on an intravenous drip due to dehydration.[4] Overnight, Happy Feet passed some sand, meaning that some had gone through his digestive system.[23] On 27 June, the zoo started flushing the sand out of his stomach – You mention twice that sand was flushed out of the oesophagus, as if these are two separate operations. But it seems it was only one?
• On 27 June, a two-to-three-hour[22][24] operation was performed – sounds like surgery, but the paper does not mention. Also, you should point out that this was for the proventriculus this time.
• leave nice messages for him", you could remove the "nice" as it does not add anything and is not very encyclopedic
• vets – you should spell it out, not all readers are natives. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I asked on Inaturalist for a free image, which worked – it's now in the article (the non-free one would not have been allowed at FAC). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Traumnovelle

In regards to the map showing the location of release: is it possible to zoom it in more? Currently with the default width on a desktop I can barely make out New Zealand. I am unfamiliar with this template works. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just changed it to a map of NZ's subantarctic islands. It's not a great map considering that it only shows half of the South Island, so maybe it should just be removed? It's a better map anyway. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)