Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• Per WP:HEAD, headers in an article should not refer to the article subject. Therefore, "WPBO history", "Whitefish Point features", and "WPBO research programs" should be "History", "Features", and "Research programs".
• The first two paragraphs of the history need some references.
• The third paragraph of features needs some references.
• It might be useful to explain how the observatory gets funds. Is it non-profit? Does it rely on some sort of patron? What are the differences in what the volunteers and staff do?
• Why follow the British procedures? Is there anything significant to that?
• Owls are captured in 10 feet (3.0 m) high by 25 feet (7.6 m) wide specialty nets strung along clearings in the trees. - source?

That's it for now. The article will be on hold for seven days to allow for improvements...once those are made, I'll add some more suggestions to the list. Nikki♥311 04:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good. I have two more suggestions:

• It seems that references 7 and 8 are the same. If this is the case, they can be combined like the first reference.
• A lead is supposed to summarize all the main points of an article, not introduce new information. Therefore, the sentence about recording over 300 species of birds needs to be mentioned elsewhere in the article (in addition to the lead) to remain in the lead, as well.

Nikki♥311 06:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Everything looks good, so I have passed the article. Congrats. :) Nikki♥311 01:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]