Australian boobook is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Timor, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Timor on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East TimorWikipedia:WikiProject East TimorTemplate:WikiProject East TimorWikiProject East Timor articles
You only present some of the people mentioned throughout. Same with giving dates for publications in text.
added introductions....I can't see a text without a date...?Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example "the latter remarking that it was "one of the most difficult problems I have ever encountered"", "Examining both morphological and genetic (cytochrome b) characters, German biologist Michael Wink and colleagues", and "Gwee and colleagues found that boobook populations". FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are common names italicised in the taxonomy section?
non-English words are italicized according to the MOS. Hence have done so with native names that are unused.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Southern boobook" is in italics too once. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"However, he added" Could we get a date for the quote?
none in source - best I can do is that Caley was in Australia from 1800 to 1808 in a footnote?Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ngarluma people of the western Pilbara knew it as" Why past tense?
the language is becoming extinct with only 20 speakers left.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"used in breeding with the last surviving female of the Norfolk boobook" Name should be linked, and if it's extinct, state explicitly.
we-ell not so simple. The last female was mated with some NZ moreporks so all there are are hybridsCas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs link and scientific name for the Norfolk bird. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"whether the Norfolk boobook should be recognised as a separate taxon at all" If that's the case, shouldn't Norfolk boobook be listed as a subspecies here, and perhaps redirect? Seems it isn't recognised by the IUCN either, and the article is pretty scrawny.
I think the text is unclear there because you say "of three subspecies (as well as the powerful and rufous owls) to ascertain whether the closest relative was used in breeding with the last surviving female of the Norfolk boobook." Subspecies of this species? And why were they included? FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the powerful and rufous owls were outlying groups.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but now I'm just wondering why all this info is relevant in this article? It is about whether another owl is related to yet another owl, neither of which this article covers? If this owl was only used as outgroup, the study doesn't really say anything about it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah..have removed the material as complicating things undulyCas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, seems like it would be useful to save it in one of the more relevant articles? FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is - it is already in morepork, which is the taxon that covers the Tasmanian and Norfolk populations.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 17:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You only give scientific names after some common names, should be consistent.
Still a bunch missing (including links), especially under feeding, and some under breeding (where some scientific names are also linked instead of the common). FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added - plants link to scientific names as that's where target articles are.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"leading Gwee and colleagues suggesting it be" to suggest?
Here's a ping, Casliber, seems the GA bot didn't seem to notify you. I will add more comments later. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find that this happens sometimes...ok on itCas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"to be markedly divergent to the Australian populations" Divergent from?
"in that birds from more southerly parts of the range tend to be larger" Maybe it could be specified that this is due to the climate supposedly being colder to the south, not due to it being southern in itself.
"Birds from Tasmania belong to a taxon, leucopsis which is more closely related to (and hence treated as a subspecies of) the New Zealand species." Not sure why this level of detail is needed in the intro? The writing is also kind of convoluted, I had a hard time understanding it.
the issue is that it was odd that genetically these birds from Tasmania are actually more closely related to New Zealand rather than mainland Australian boobooks. For many years they were assumed to be closer to other Australian populations. I get your point though and have a think.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
have removed the sentence as complicating things undulyCas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, nothing left to do, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancy in intro
The intro currently says: The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has assessed the southern boobook as being of least concern. The important information here is that there is very little risk of extinction. Maybe it is reasonable to specify who it is that says this. But it is not reasonable to refer twice to this organization with different names, especially not in the intro, that is to be short. Neither is it reasonable tho hold that the abbreviation adds clarity to the fully spelled out name. And evene if it may do this for a small minority of the readers, it is more reasonable to let this minority click on the link to know more, than to present dual names to all readers. --Ettrig (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the edit summary, the test is not whether it helps you. The
IUCN acronym helps our worldwide readership. It provides useful context. In the spirit and interest of compromise, we can move it to later in the article if that will defuse this tempest in a teapot. Otherwise, I am more than willing to defer to consensu here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Later is OK with me, although not good. Tempest, I do not understand in this context. The full name is explanatory. The abbreviation is very close to uninterpretable in itself. Therefore I find your argument that the acronym adds clarity completely void. --Ettrig (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a small digression in Wikipedia land. Not to dismiss your viewpoint. But other than you and me, probably nobody else cares. Let's resolve it and build an encyclopaedia together. Happy New Year! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Made change. Are we good to go? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the change. As discussed elsewhere,
the relevant style guide suggests that initialisms of this sort should be defined on their first usage in the article, in the form "name of organization (initialism)". There is no guidance to make lead sections "short". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
no guidance to make lead sections "short". This is a clear untruth.
WP:LEDE says both concise and in a nutshell. It also says that the intro should contain only the most important information. IUCN is not even information about the bird. So it cannot be among the most important information. --Ettrig (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Ettrig: "concise" doesn't necessarily mean "short", and it definitely does not mean "break accessibility for the sake of brevity". Consensus is to define initialisms like this on their first use in the article, with some editors suggesting it should be defined a second time if used both within and outside the lead section. If you'd like to present a different viewpoint to that discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Define IUCN initialism in bird articles? Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are going far beyond reasonable here. One of the meanings given by Webster's ... Dictionary for concise is employing as few words as possible. But you are repeating your falsehood. Obviously it is not possible to discuss meaningfully with someone who acts in this way. --Ettrig (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt go with the
WP:MOS. It should be used as a parenthetical in its first usage in the article. The relevancy and concise argument is erroneous, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) The personal attacks are really unnecessary. All I'm really trying to say to you here is why don't you participate in the central discussion if you have a differing opinion? Repeating this argument on every bird article's talk page is, well, not very concise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}