Talk:British Birds Rarities Committee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleBritish Birds Rarities Committee has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 15, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 7, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 22, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

I like the structure for this article -first thoughts are that you need to write a stub def for national rarity committees, to avoid a redlink in the key opening sentence. Conversely, I'd be inclined to delink most of the personnel unless they have articles - most are non-notable unless you assume that BBRC membership establishes notability. Let me know what you think, but I'm inclined to pass this anyway, unless any criticisms I haven't thought of turn up in the near future. Jimfbleak 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll create the stub def as suggested. Regarding the list of members - just to clarify, you're suggested delinking only, not deletion, is that right. My personal preference is for redlinks anywhere where there is a chance where someone might be able to create the article, as that encourages users to add content. I'd agree that a significant proportion aren't notable enough to deserve their own articles - membership of BBRC isn't enough in its own right. Perhaps we could steer a middle course and leave as redlinks those who deserve an article, although admittedly there's going to be a bit of subjective judgment creeping in there. I'm easy whichever option we choose, though, really. SP-KP 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just de-redlinking, not deleting - but your compromise makes sense. I'll have proper read through to see if there is anything to fix, but it may be tomorrow now Jimfbleak 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - delinking done. Let me know if you disagree with any individual decisions (whether to unlink or retain). SP-KP 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to mention the
BOURC, and the lead is a bit sparse, with little hint of what is to come esp wrt the reviews, otherwise it all seems pretty good. Jimfbleak 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Good Article nomination

here
for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A minor point - twice you say "currently" - better to give a date. Just out fo interest, do you have the BBi DVD? Jimfbleak 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all points fixed, I think, apart from the lead? Yes, I have BBi - it's already proved useful in helping to source this. SP-KP 19:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done some more on the lead - how does it look? SP-KP 19:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro looks better at first glance, I'm out all day tomorrow, I'll have a good (final?) read through on Thursday Jimfbleak 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done final readthrough, fixed a few typos and I've passed it as GA well done!. To get to FA, I think you need to expand some sections as you indicate in the box above, but you're an old hand at this so I'm sure you realise that. One stylistic point - I'm not sure of the validity of linking all the years, when events in the BBRC are hardly of significance in the broader picture.

List of people

  • The list of 69 people; it is a varied group including statisticians, museum consultants, archivists and avicultural consultants, or on the Seabirds Advisory Panel or RIACT. Is there a better way of listing so that the statisticians, archivists, consultants, and so on can be listed so that an individual's role can be clearly shown? If this was credits to a film, then all the people would have there roles included. On wiki film pages names and roles are given, so perhaps the roles and contributions of the people on the list here should be clearer. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list of people contains just record-assessors. None of the people performing other roles are listed. SP-KP (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, yes that is what is says. Is my misreading partly due to the wording and the long section in the round brackets? Snowman (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've moved the bracketed text to after the list of people. SP-KP (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture selection

The FA review for this article has identified that we need a better / higher-quality selection of pictures for this article. Does anyone have any suggestions? SP-KP (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have pictures of any of the people? I took yhe picture of Colin Bibby at http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/obituaries/bibby.htm so can upload that if necessary. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been a BBRC member though, has he? SP-KP (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no; sorry - I was thinking of his role on the Rare Breeding Birds Panel. Now there's an article that needs starting… Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's still a redlink when BBRC finally gets to FA status, I'll be happy to oblige. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've started it, but here's lots more to do. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a photograph that was submitted to the committee available? and if it is fuzzy then it will help to illustrate some the difficulties of bird identification. Snowman (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some good photographs of people taking photographs of birds. It would need to be in the UK. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of FAC discussion

I've copied the FAC discussion here so that the editors who raised issues which have been fixed can confirm that they agree that these are resolved. SP-KP (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments:

Thanks - some useful comments here. SP-KP (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this still needs a copyedit. It's not in terrible shape by any means, but there are anomalies of punctuation, wording, and grammar ("and these leading the BOURC", "diagnosable").
I've fixed the first of these, please check. Can you expand on the second - I'm not sure I can spot what the issue is. A general copyedit, I'll leave to you & others. SP-KP (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos for not resorting to citation templates, but I think you're doing the reader a disservice by excluding nearly all punctuation in the citations. I'm not married to any style of referencing, but it's particularly difficult to differentiate article titles without the visual aid of quote marks.
In their original format, this wasn't a problem, as all journal names were wikilinked. Someone, during the FA review, delinked all but the first mention. Should we revert to the previous format, or is that against style guidelines? SP-KP (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of listing every annual report in the Bibliography section?
Nothing more than "usefulness" really, which may not be a good enough reason. SP-KP (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links to non-html pages should indicate the alternate format—i.e., (PDF) for links to PDFs.
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never come across this strange practice of creating redirects from 'backwards' names (
    WP:BIRD
    habit?
No, probably just a weird User:SP-KP habit :-) SP-KP (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly help with some copyediting, although I may not be able to do much until after this (holiday) weekend. Maralia (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Andy Walsh

I'm doing some copyediting and have a couple questions/issues:

  • Please double-check that you are consistently capitalizing "the Committee"; I fixed one before noticing that there are many discrepancies.
  • Red links in "Structure and personnel": likely ever to receive articles? If not, please de-link.
  • "Old World warblers have proved particularly in need of re-review." Source?
  • "A review of olivaceous warbler records commenced in 1986" I don't get why some bird names are capitalized and some aren't. Consistency issue?
  • What is the organizational strategy of the Re-reviews section? It seems somewhat random. Why not write about them in the order they occurred?

--Andy Walsh (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing Links to BBRC Site. Annual Reports OK, Main Article OK

I found many of the report links at the bottom to bbrc.org.uk were broken. I corrected them today against the site, so they are ok. I also corrected the 14 links to BBRC in the body of the article. The only issue is that the News article for 1 April 2009, was probably 4 January 2009 (an article about membership), and that is what I used. There was no 1 April 2009 news article on BBRC site. Constitution is referenced twice, I updated both links. RC711 (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Birds_Rarities_Committee&oldid=1199772232"