Talk:Human uses of birds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

==GA Review==

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
Talk:Birds in culture/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs) 04:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on.Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this article has substantial issues, mostly in the breadth of its coverage. On both broad coverage and focus I have problems that I'm not convinced can be sorted quickly. I won't fail it immediately though.

I'm quite sanguine about GA as an improvement process - I've had GANs passed with almost no effort, and GANs that took dozens of hours of hard work. I suspect this one lies somewhere between those extremes, so if you're prepared to work with me I think we can sort this one.

Coverage issues

Coverage
  • I don't think this article does a great job covering the major points of the subject. Straight off the bat I am worried about what exactly it is trying to cover - and it seems to take the broadest view possible about culture. Rather than sticking to "cultural" in an artistic sense (senso cultural depictions) it goes for the wider sense, which is allowable but perhaps the article would be better named Birds and humans or something to that effect.
I don't mind limiting the article to "high culture" or "art and literature" if that's what you prefer, but I go along with the biological or sociological views of culture, that it's everything that's transmitted to the next generation other than by the genes. I have no objection to changing the article's title; "Birds in human culture" might be best as it doesn't imply high art but culture sensu largo. But I believe that should happen after GA.
Maybe defining what is meant by culture on the lead would help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Insofar as it does cover the wider spectrum of relationship with humans from Bird it does so at a very superficial level. Economic importance is scattered across the article, and food is treated very superficially. Domestication of various food species, and intensive agriculturalization thereof is not touched at all. Hunting has a very western bias - subsistence and recreational hunters across the world take any number of species beyond the traditional game species of the west. Conservation is not named as such at all and the only line about conservation organisations don't even mention what they exist to do!
Economic importance: now grouped.
Domestication: added and cited.
Intensive poultry production: mentioned and cited.
Hunting: added palaeolithic use of birds as food.
  • Hunting could still be fleshed out. For example passerine birds are hunted for food in New Guinea. here.
Added.
Conservation: I've borrowed and acknowledged the (your?) Bird section as it seems to suit well.
  • Conservation section is good but it isn't an improvement on what's in bird - if this is a stand alone article that elaborates on bird in this area surely it should elaborate. Also, why did the ref to RSPB survive orphaned from the rest of conservation, still not explaining what its for? Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added paragraph on trade-offs, and more refs.
RSPB ref moved to Conservation and extended.
  • A large amount of the content about the cultural (artistic and religious) connotations of birds has been lifted from bird but without much elaboration or expansion.
That is how the article began; that article's coverage should (given the 'main' link there) be reduced to a summary of what is here. It does not mean the coverage here is wrong (or right), that's certainly a matter for discussion and agreement.
  • I would object strongly to reducing what's there, it covers the subject lightly. This needs to elaborate on whats there and tie it together, Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's another article, let's focus on here, where the coverage is already extended significantly. We need to focus on the remaining gaps, as below. For the record, the article is now twice as long as the material in Bird; and it has grown substantially this week.
Extended the music section from my work on
Birds in music
.
Focus
  • The article falls down here too. There is a dangerous "listy" quality to the arts and religion sections. When I wrote the original relationships with humans section of bird back in preparation for FAC I tried to do so to remove huge lists of "in culture" examples and instead go for an a "birds feature in poetry, here's an example" "birds are used as symbols of x, here's an example" etc. Some of that survives through here to this article but whole paragraphs are simply disjointed examples roughly themed, example: In poetry, the 1177 Persian poem "The Conference of the Birds", the birds of the world assemble under the wisest bird, the hoopoe, to decide who is to be their king.[23] In English poetry, John Keats's 1819 "Ode to a Nightingale" and Percy Bysshe Shelley's 1820 "To a Skylark" are popular classics.[24][25] Bird poems by Gerard Manley Hopkins include "Sea and Skylark" and "The Windhover".[26] Ted Hughes's 1970 collection of poems about a bird character, "Crow", is considered one of his most important works.[27] English-language poems about birds have been have been anthologized in "Bright Wings" illustrated by David Allen Sibley and edited by Billy Collins.[28]
I've added new sections, paragraphed and trimmed the text, and copy-edited it to flow better.
  • Focus is highly Eurocentric. For example every example given in arts is Western. Similarly for fashion, and as I noted above, hunting.
Arts: added Chinese bird-and-flower and Japanese arts; already had cave painting, Ancient Greece and Rome, mediaeval Persia, indigenous Americas.
Fashion: both indigenous and Western are covered.
Hunting: One sentence is Western; added a longer paragraph on palaeolithic hunting.
  • Focus is very recentist. A whole subsection of fashion is devoted to this year's fashions!
That was added, uncited, by another editor very recently. I've removed it.
  • Folklore and metaphorical use has been lost entirely. Symbols is mostly pub names from one country! Really? There's a lot of stuff in bird that could have come across and been used. What about bald eagles and kiwis as national symbols? Owls as wisdom or death (in Europe or Africa)?
Have greatly cut down the pubs, and borrowed with acknowledgement some of the (your?) material on folklore from bird.
  • Weight is off too. Why do the rather obscure (but interesting no question) habits of honeyguides get a section larger than birds as food! As does the detailed description of Aristophanes's play The Birds and 2017 bird fashion (which also gets way more coverage than traditional uses of feathers for fashion).
Cut down the honeyguide, though like you I find it remarkable.
The 2017 bird fashion has gone already.
Cut down the treatment of Aristophanes.
Extended the food section.

Beyond Coverage

  • References: 2017 fashion section completely unreferenced.
Removed, as mentioned twice already!
  • I think the references cited are mostly fine but they definitely need a few cited general texts to hang the whole article off, a few books about birds in culture in general. Using such texts would allow the article to make general statements about the importance of birds in culture that can be backed up with good cited examples.
Added an overview with some general books on folklore and a cited discussion of the inspiration provided by birds.
  • Well written. This article has some deep structural issues too. The arrangement of the sections is haphazard. Why is food and other uses (which should be economic importance) separate? Why is symbols so far away from the other artistic aspects.
Regrouped.
  • To find carcasses and honey are really weirdly placed and named.
Now grouped under Economic uses into 'Assisting hunters and gatherers', just after 'Food', which seems a good place.
  • Why, artistically, is fashion separate from arts? I think it needs to be a subsection and the arts section needs to be broken up to cover the major fields, art, music, writing and poetry, dance and film (with an introductory section too)
Regrouped with new subsection headings.
  • Pets are covered twice (once in for enjoyment (which should be entertainment) and once in other uses
Regrouped.
  • The lead should cover the whole article and roughly follow its structure and it doesn't.
Done.

I'm sorry this was a pretty savage review, but I think this needs a lot more work and expansion to be close to GA standard. I know you're a good and responsive writer, but it's a lot. If you think you can address the problems I'm happy to stick around and go into more detail with you. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. I think most of this comes down to a) some restructuring with higher-level sections (Economic uses, Entertainment, ...), b) a bit of general pruning, and c) a few judicious additions for balance. The article is already richly cited, informative, broad, and well illustrated, so perhaps the coloration is more soft shades of
dove-grey than harsh black-and-white magpie. Let's work on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Cool, we should be able to whip this into shape. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sabine's Sunbird: Thanks. By the way, I'd be glad if you could strike or otherwise mark items that you feel are complete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sabine's Sunbird: I've attempted to address all the issues to date, hope you're pleased with progress. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue the review after tomorrow (busy day today and tomorrow ;) To keep you going while I'm real life-ing I notice that pigeon racing is in the lead but not main article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pigeon racing: added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review

Okay, this is much improved. I still have some concerns about coverage and weight, but we can deal with this when we dive into the weeds. I'll go through the article and then return to the lead when we've finished:

Many thanks.
  • Use and inspiration This is a good addition, but is focused almost entirely on inspiration! Maybe the first line goes to the lead and the rest becomes just "inspiration' which maybe moves with symbolism (keeping both at the front, as both symbolism and inspiration are themes played with as the article goes along.
Thanks, good suggestion, done.
  • Speaking of folklore you say A substantial folklore has accrued around birds; it was documented early in the 20th century as something that was already fading from memory but provide little examples of folklore. I acknowledge that it is covered in passing in symbols (which is why the two should be moved together) but it is worth treating the two as separate concepts with separate examples: example owls as a symbol of death in Africa as contrasted to owls as a symbol of wisdom in Europe and owls being held to be heralds of death if they land on your house is an example both of symbolism (death) and folklore (augury). To avoid confusion it may be worth picking different examples of folklore from the examples used for symbolism - for example both hamerkop (in Africa) and New Zealand fantails are considered harbingers of death if they associate with your house in traditional folklore.
Have moved the symbols along with their bad luck, harbingers of doom, etc, in here; mentioned symbolism in the quoted sentence. Added that same spp. can be seen in opp. ways in diff. cultures, giving example of both owl and hoopoe. The hamerkop is a fascinating example but I'd not know what to contrast it with, and perhaps we have enough already.
  • Its an example of folklore not symbolism. I'm not sure you understood that distinction that I was trying to make. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These things can be and are interpreted in different ways; all folklore is human and symbolic, and I have no strong views on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some examples of the folklore on the house sparrow, from ancient Egypt and Rome to the Middle Ages.
  • A former statesman, Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon, was able to express his feeling for birds in his 1927 book The Charm of Birds. And?
Rearranged and connected the feelings up within the paragraph.
  • The Metropolitan Museum of Art observes that birds were important in Andean societies, where bright parrot and macaw feathers were traded from the Amazon rainforest to the mountains and the Pacific coast, while guano was collected as a fertiliser, and artists and craftsmen were inspired to create textiles, metal jewellery, and ceramics depicting condors, cormorants, ducks, hummingbirds, owls, vultures, and waders. Their religions, too, endowed birds with symbolic meaning This is nice, but can you frame it in a way that makes it illustrative of the human condition? This is not an article about Andean societies (and which societies and when?) Maybe something to the effect of Studies have shown how important birds are to individual societies, touching on all aspects of life..."
Done, and added names and dates of cultures.
  • Economic uses : as food. Maybe worth noting how seabirds have been are still harvested? Muttonbirding and puffin hunting are two examples.
Done.
  • Bones of raptors such as vultures may however indicate symbolic uses is inelegant and doesn't really explain much. Bones of raptors such as vultures have been found in the same deposits and as these species were unlikley to have been eaten they may indicate symbolic hunting and use instead?
Dropped.
  • I'm really iffy about the Piciformes being described as being in the woodpecker order.
Gone.
  • They use a specific whistle, which doubles the encounter rate with honeyguides. Which they is meant by they?
Fixed.
  • The War of the Pacific in 1865 was in part about control of guano sources I think you need to make the leap from "used for fertilizer" to "war" with a bridging statement about the strategic importance of the resource and the efforts governments made to secure it.
Added.
  • Today, the chicken is used as a model organism in biological research.[29] I think that the entire field of ornithology, and perhaps the contributions of birds to other fields of science (pollution and DDT or evolutionary biology) could be mentioned here.
Done.
Wikilinked.
I'll continue to go through this through the weekend. No need to oing me when you're done its on my watchlist. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

  • Mythology has been moved up to symbolism and inspiration but not art? Why?
Rearranged. I guess I can see the implied logic to the order of sections.
  • Religion - I think this could be restructured by theme to make it flow better. Themes would be birds as gods, birds as messengers of the gods, birds as symbols or metaphors, birds in religious ceremonies, birds as monsters. The last one is a bit short and could do with a bit more filling out.
Reorganised as suggested. Added the Simurgh.
  • Cockfighting, banned in many countries in the twentieth century on grounds of cruelty, is an ancient spectator sport. It formed part of the culture of the ancient Indians, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans. It continues to be practised in South America and across South and Southeast Asia, often combined with betting on the result I would introduce the concept, the betting, the history, before talking about its status today.
Done.
  • Many people put out birdfeeders to attract Many people? Across the world how many is many? (I suspect I may be critiquing my own words here and elsewhere btw :P )
Mmm, yes, there's no doubt it runs into the millions.Tryjanowski et al 2015 Your choice of "many" is safe enough. ;-}
  • As pets has a very Western, Anglo world outlook. Cagebird trade in SE and East Asia would be an important perspective here, as would a non-Anglophonic tradition, perhaps Vinkensport or something like it.
Good suggestion, added Asian cagebirds and Vinkensport.
  • Very parrot focused too, what about pet quail, finches? What about breeding bantams and pigeons (Darwin was a big fan of the latter), or exotics? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended and wikilinked, and mentioned D.'s fancy also.
  • The cagebird trade threatens some species with extinction, as birds are illegally captured in the wild. It think it should be made clearer that the cagebird trade is distinct from the pet industry.
Not sure there is any defensible distinction. The source indeed is headed "Illegal Pet Trade Threatens 13 Indonesian Birds with Extinction": the cagebird trade demonstrably supplies consumers with pet birds. What we can say is "in some parts of the world": done that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks.
  • I haven't forgotten about this, but the remaining sections on art are perhaps the hardest to help you with as I'm doing research to help and have about twenty tabs on my browser with various articles about birds in dance, in fashion, in folklore and other media. As an observation to keep you busy in the meantime, dramatic arts has a handful of films but basically almost no mass media. Where are references to iconic characters like Daffy Duck, Donald Duck, Tweety Pie, Woody Woodpecker, The Penguins of Madagascar, Angry Birds, Woodstock, and so on? They don't all have to be there, Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some sparrow folklore and some mass media characters (Messrs. D. Duck, W. Woodpecker etc) for you. It's plainly right to have mentioned the mass media; obviously we can't cover everything; and I'd say we're well over the threshold of covering "the main points". Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final arbitrary break

Okay, sorry for the delay but let's finish this.

Glad you've found the time.
  • In prose is really light. What's the significance of the stories in aesop's fables? Is all that can be said about Audubon's books that they are admired? What about John Gould's books? Is there nothing about literature abart from fables, bird guides and kiddie books?
Aesop: - done.
Audubon: - done.
Gould: - done.
Other lit - added.
  • I know this is nitpicking but if you're going to give an example of dancing and birds of paradise then a Papuan example [1] since that is where they are from, not Bali.
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fashion one is very biased towards fashion still. Use of feathers outside the west gets a single sentence? With a single example that doesn't really say much? What about the use of feathers in trade in Polynesia [2] or the use of feathers in Polynesian costume? Ostrich feathers were an important trade item between Africa and Europe once [3] and there are better articles about the meaning of feathers in fashion than the "My art means this" statements of fashion designers/ like this one [4].
Done.
  • In film, Alfred Hitchcock's acclaimed 1963 The Birds, loosely based on Daphne du Maurier's story of the same name, tells the tale of sudden attacks on people by violent flocks of birds.[66] Ken Loach's much admired[67] 1969 Kes, based on Barry Hines's 1968 novel A Kestrel for a Knave, tells the story of a young boy who comes of age by training a kestrel that he has taken from the nest.[67] Listy.
Connected.

This is close. But there needs to be a little more context for some of these areas. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see if I can do that today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've been a trooper on this review mate. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A drive-by comment, bird (taxidermied) and egg-collecting has been very popular historically, even to the point were some species were partially driven to extinction by it (such as the
    Great Auk), perhaps worth a mention? FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Mentioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
    I will note that the quality of refs is very good for "in culture" references
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Passes, but I would expect more work if this is to go to FAC
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    File:Audubon Birds of America.jpg is a derivative work of a PD source. That folio seems to be far more recent than indicated. It shouldn't be hard to find an actual Audubon image to use in its place.
First 'elephant' edition it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Sabine's Sunbird - many thanks for the review, I think we're all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Birds in culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_uses_of_birds&oldid=1202839801"