Talk:Australian boobook/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has waited long for a bird nomination, so I'll give it a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the synonyms need dates in the taxobox.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a sentence on conservation in the intro, but no mention in the article body.

section added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 26 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]

changed to quote marks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 26 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 hybrids Cas 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]

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 26 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.

it is a subspecies of the morepork not this one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I tried this. Does that make it clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 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 unduly Cas 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.

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"suggesting that these locations were colonised much more recently" Any dates?

sadly, source doesn't specify... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"to be markedly divergent to the Australian populations" Divergent from?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Mayr is introduced and linked twice.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"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.

good point. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some anatomical terms under description could be linked.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In dryer areas it" Drier?[1]

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"heard up to a km away" Convert?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Growls, high-pitched yelps and screeched" Screeches?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"between one and twenty metres" Convert.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" 41.6 mm long by 35.5 mm wide" Convert.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"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 unduly Cas 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]