Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birds WikiProject
General information Main project page talk  → Article requests talk  → Attention needed talk  → New articles talk Project portal talk Project banner talk Project category talk Departments Assessment talk Bird Articles By Size talk Collaboration talk Country lists talk Featured topics talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Task forces Domestic pigeon task force talk edit · changes

The peer review department of the Birds WikiProject conducts reviews for all Bird-related articles. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Birds WikiProject.

Contents 1 Instructions 1.1 Requesting a review 1.2 Responding to a request 1.3 Archiving 2 Requests 2.1 Antbird 2.2 Feral pigeon 2.3 Aethia 2.4 Ornithology 2.5 Laysan Duck 2.6 South American Bittern 2.7 Red-tailed Hawk 2.8 Wood Thrush 2.9 Feathers 2.10 Whistling Kite 2.11 Banggai Crow 2.12 Osprey 2.13 American Crow

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{BirdTalk}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{BirdTalk}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

[edit] Requests

[edit] Antbird

I think this is close. I know I need to add a section on voice (will get top that this week). Appart from that I just need to do some minor structural stuff, and I need the usual help with copy editing. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Did a round of reading and minor fixes. I think it would do well with a cladogram that includes the Formicariidae. Shyamal (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• I've got recordings of a variety of antbirds which I'll download when I get back home. I'm in Alaska at the minute, and all the original cuts aren't! Hopefully, that'll help your "voice" section... MeegsC | Talk 06:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feral pigeon

I'd like someone to come and review the article please. I've been slowly adding to it but some expert advice would be handy. Sting_au Talk 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aethia

Did a major/nearly-complete rewrite using peer-reviewed publications. Comments welcome. Albnd (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work expanding it. The question is where do you want to take this? I'm assuming to a GA, in which case you'll need to add more information. The first thing that needs to be added is an intro before the first heading to summarise everything below. More generally, things that are currently one lines can be expanded, such as diet, sociality, and the like. Also worth including is relationship with humans and conservation, the following being a good source for one species and place to start...

• Williams, J.C., Byrd G.V.& Konyukhov, N.B. (2003) Whiskered Auklets Aethia pygmaea, foxes, humans and how to right a wrong. 'Marine Ornithology 31: 175-180 [1]

Also information on natural predators and and movements or migrations they may undertake. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback! I'll work on this over the holidays. Any thoughts on what information should be placed in the articles specific to the species vs. in the genus would be appreciated. Albnd (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A comment on formatting, footnotes should go after punctuation, not before it.^[1] With regards to what to include in the genus articles versus species ones, it is a matter of personal judgement. Where details are roughly the same for the whole genus this can easily be dealt with by stating the fact (Aethia aucklets are colonial); where you deal with range (for example the sizes of the largest colonies), use the largest and smallest as named examples (the colonies of X Aucklet have up to 25,000 species, whereas the Y Aucklet can number as high as 1,000,000). Obviously don't do this if there is a wide overlap (like in incubation times). For an idea of how to write articles on higher level taxa than species, check out Procellariidae and Albatross. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ornithology

Please add review comments below. Shyamal (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Hi Shyamal: Here's my two cents:

• The lead is too short; it should be 2—3 paragraphs, briefly summarizing the major points of the article.
• Try to eliminate as many of those one and two sentence paragraphs as possible. Can any be combined with existing information, or further expanded?
• "...poultry farming and falconry were in practice..." --> "...poultry farming and falconry were practiced..."
• You've used the phrase "very early times" twice within four sentences. Is it really necessary the second time, since you're also giving dates?
• The sentence "Native cultures in all parts of the world included rich vocabularies for the identification uses of birds" is very unclear. What are "identification uses"?

I'll add more bits as I get time! MeegsC | Talk 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these. Have tried to make a few amends. Shyamal (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laysan Duck

I haven't worked much on this article, but I've been monitoring its expansion and growth by other editors. I think this article has good FA potential, and I just upgraded it from Start to B-Class for the Hawaii project. Basically, I'm looking for experts on the bird project to make any suggestions for improvement on the Hawaii end of things. I would also appreciate any collaboration between the two projects. —Viriditas | Talk 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, it is well onthe way - I've tweaked the layout so it is like other bird FAs. It needs a lead to summarise salient points - touch on description etc. I defined the taxonomy section next. I've only spent 24 hours in Hawaii in my life so am unfamiliar with what Laysan means or how to pronounce it for that matter. Need dimensions in description. Maybe a section on hwere to see them - are there any in Honolulu zoo? More to come. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and good work. I can help out with the lead, and I'll look for more info about the zoo tomorrow. —Viriditas | Talk 08:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South American Bittern

New article. Probably start class, but somebody from the review group should have a look...

Did you mean to have it assessed? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, yes! MeegsC | Talk 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant did you mean to take this to Assessment as opposed to Peer Review? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 00:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops! :) MeegsC | Talk 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red-tailed Hawk

This was on that list of "substantial articles which may be FAs/GAs", so I rearranged some of the sections, added some more refs and more information. A few other WikiProject Birds members have contributed too. Anyway, I thought I'd put it in for a peer review to get some feedback. cheers, Jude. 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"The dark and intermediate morphs constitute 10–20% of the population." I think an inline cite is needed there. Also, this may just be me, but in the taxobox, why aren't there pretty little circles for the conservation status area, with the LC circle highlighted? I like it better that way - I think it looks better. Oh yeah, and maybe make the little paragraph about voice it's own section? I think it's fine either way, what do you more experienced editors think? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 00:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Had a few minutes spare and changed a couple of obvious things. make sure each of the photos used adds something to the article - it would be great to work in some of the gallery photos. eg. In Desription is rufous morph photo - why not subtitle one in taxobox (which looks the same) and use a ne one from the gallery here? also in distribution habitat - just a bird on a pole. Have a play. Have a priority list and work down form there. This article hasa luxury of interesting photos. Will help out more later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The refs are a little webby and general; there should be some good journal articles on this species. If you need access to any of the ones not avaliable on SORA let me know. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

More sourcing in the lead, maybe? I'll try to tackle it after I finish packing for vacation, but might not have time. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wood Thrush

I came across this page while researching for a school project, and I was shocked by how incomplete it was compared to some other sources I found, so I came back after I finished my project and rewrote almost all of the article. Here's what the page looked like before I expanded it. Anyway, I'd like some feedback on the current article. Peer review away. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Doing well. Lead needs to be a summary of contents - eg I stuck a one-liner about range. A couple more and then I'd stick the taxonomy stuff in a section just below. Have a look at American Goldfinch which has just passed GA and is well on the way to FA. Needs more refs at the bottom. If you do't know how to inline just stick 'em at the bottom and a few of us will help out.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - my problem is that I mainly used one reference, but since I suppose I'm making it my "pet project," as I find more sources, I'll add them. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 21:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are generally lots of interesting studies online. Check Google scholar somewhere along the way :)cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Google scholar? Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 23:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to Google and click 'more' (after web/images etc.) - you'll see scholar. click thre and search away. Searching the main web is Ok too and usually gets alot of hits.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - how's the lead now? I poked at it a bit. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting there; all bits in lead should be expanded later in article - thus all the classification bit should be in a section. Have a look at Common Raven as well. After this I wouldn't worry too much about lead but concetnrate on referencing. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the tips. I'll see about finding more taxo info. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How's it now? I ran around finding other references, and adding more content. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking better - link or define altricial. I italicised rather than quotation marked anting. Hvae alook at the cite format for refs and put as much info in them. There are not too many, try and diversify (i.e. get more) if possible. Just woke up so too bleary-eyed to copyedit at the moment.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just tweaked all the sources - check it out and tell me if that's what you meant by the cite format for refs. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep; much better looking.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Question - what more needs to be done to bring this article to GA status? My end goal is FA, of course, but small steps are good :) I've never really done this much to an article before, so just wondering. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I recon it'd pass GA now, or with very minor tweaks.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• blinks* So... should I nominate it? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Does a bear **** in the woods?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's GA! So, what should I tackle now in order to aim for FA? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feathers

This hasn't been rated or reviewed yet -- and it's a pretty important subject! MeegsC | Talk 12:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs information on feather growth. Especially of interest is the tubular origin and the discussion on the origins of feathers. (Some papers by Richard Prum and others) Shyamal 07:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whistling Kite

I've made substantial changes to this article (which was previously a two-sentence stub), and would love to get some feedback on it. MeegsC 08:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banggai Crow

This article is one just created by me, a new user. I had some trouble garnering information about their diet and nesting habits. Any other comments/feedback? I'd like to know how I could improve in the future. Australian Raven 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• Which island were the specimens collected on? One of the bigger named ones or some small remote one?
• What's causing the habitat loss that may be contributing to the bird's demise?
• Mention that the bird was last seen in 1885 (or whatever).
• Explain that the article's lack of information is due to the bird's extreme rarity/extinction (e.g. that NOBODY knows this information).
• Detail the 1991 and 1996 expeditions that searched for it.
• Explain why some scientists think it's only a subspecies of Slender-billed Crow; also, how does it differ from that species?
• Measurements should be in both metric and imperial units (ie cm and in)
• Is there any information about the two known specimens, other than where they were collected? Did the collectors observe any behaviour before collecting them?

I'd start with these... MeegsC | Talk 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osprey

I have added Osprey to generate interest in it, as (one day) a possible FAC. It is a cosmopolitan bird which people all over the world are familiar with and thus anyone on wikiproject birds unless they live in Antarctica. cheers Cas Liber 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Crow

I've made significant changes to the article. I'd like some feedback on what needs to be done going forward. Elliskev 17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Briefly

• First off the laundry list in the popular culture needs to be made into paragraphs. I think the title should be changed to Role in culture since popular culture is more here and now. And incidentally, many of the instances mentioned of their role in culture seem not to be specific of American Crows, they could easily be of many other species. Are there any cultural roles specific to American Crows (maybe in Native American legends?)
• The introduction should be a summary of the whole article, not the section on description (per MOS). Move that section into a new subheading (Description, which you should merge with Voice) then summarise the article in the intro.
• There is quite a bit more that can be said about the biology of the species, if you are at a university I suggest reading Cornell University's Birds of North America [2] for more info. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to come up with a plan for this. --Elliskev 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead is a little short. LuciferMorgan 15:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are four, according to ITIS, subspecies of the American Corw. They should be mentioned, along iwth their ranges, in the article. This could be done by renaming similar species to Taxonomy and adding the info there. Joelito (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• There are many publication on this species from which the article can be expanded. Check out [3] and search for the species. Joelito (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)