Jump to content

Talk:British Birds Rarities Committee/FAC

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

British Birds Rarities Committee

[edit]

I am nominating this for featured article status. It's been a Good article for a while and the peer review generated relatively few comments, so this seems like the next logical step. Please add your comments here. SP-KP (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial comments

[edit]
Looks good. Resolved?
The alt text added so far looks good, thanks. Several images still lack alt text, though; see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox on the upper right corner of this review page. Also, one image has just the alt text "111" which I assume is a typo. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All except the "111" should now be present - could you check? Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "111" is now fixed too. SP-KP (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that was fast! It looks good. Eubulides (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
  • Comment I did the GA assessment and participated in the PR, so unsurprisingly I can't see much wrong with this article. On the list of members, I don't like the mix of red links and no links. Although I can see why you've done this, it's not obvious to a non-birder, and I would be inclined to delink all the members without articles, which would look better too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved SP-KP (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why the words "alt=" appear below the Grouse image? Or more importantly, how to get rid of them! SP-KP (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bug I introduced in a template while adding alt text support to it (in order to get alt text to work with the article). Sorry about that. It's fixed now. Eubulides (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
  • Comment, from my initial glance at the article the lead needs to do a better job of explaining A total of around 250 species is covered by the BBRC; these are selected based on a numerical threshold and the degree of difficulty of identification. I understand what it means, but only because I've worked with birds. I honestly think that you could cut and paste the line from the main text Around 550 bird species have been recorded in Britain; 250 have regular breeding or wintering populations, or are common migrants, and a further 50 are "scarce migrants". The remaining 250 species are those which the BBRC assesses to make the whole concept more understandable in the lead. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem with that - what do others think? SP-KP (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the suggested amendment would add more perspective to the relevant UK birds. Are these approximate numbers? or should the amendment be taken literally and these are exactly 250 species covered? "Around" is mentioned once for the estimated 550 birds seen in the UK, and I wondered if "about" or "approximately" should be added anywhere else? Snowman (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The figures are approximate (and by now, given that the source is a few years old) a little out of date. The figure is probably now clser to 300 than 250. SP-KP (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed this now; the figures are now more up to date. SP-KP (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved? SP-KP (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only editor I'm aware of who does is Nigel Hudson, who I assume is the same Nigel Hudson who is the committee's secretary, who edited the page on 24 Oct 2008. SP-KP (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I assume that his contribution(s) has been checked for neutrality? Snowman (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I checked it and amended the text slightly to make the words more neutral. SP-KP (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved? SP-KP (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
The grouse logo is the logo of British Birds magazine, as opposed to the rarities committee itself. So this is really a "To Do" point for the British Birds article, would you agree? SP-KP (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is it the wrong logo for this page? Snowman (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In their annual reports and other publications, they use the logo of Zeiss, their sponsor. Personally, I don't think that would be appropriate here as it would seem like a bit of free advertising. SP-KP (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is the Zeiss logo actually the committee's logo? or is it featured at the sponsors logo? I guess that fair use of the Zeiss logo would be permitted. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the Grouse logo is the logo of British Birds magazine, the Zeiss logo is Zeiss's logo and is just used by BBRC as part of the sponsorship deal, and BBRC doesn't have a logo of its own. Assuming this is a correct interpretation of the situation, what would be the appropriate thing to do? SP-KP (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am hearing that the logo in the infobox is the logo of the British Birds mag. What is the case for using the British Birds logo here? I have pointed out a problem, and if there is a doubt about the logo then one solution would be to remove it, but there may be other answers. Why not use the textlogo.gif that on on the committee's website situated between the grouse logo and the Ziess logo? Snowman (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the name, I'm sceptical that BBRC would regard that as a logo - I can't find this graphic anywhere in their recent publications. I'm not sure what the right answer to this is. Let's see what others have to say. SP-KP (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one has commented over the last two weeks. So what are you going to do about the logo in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to leave it as it is: it doesn't seem to be a big issue, otherwise we'd have had some comments. Is that OK, or would it cause you to oppose FA status? SP-KP (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything on a page for FA status needs supporting evidence. Where is the evidence that the logo is appropriate? Snowman (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. Unless I can find some harder evidence that the logo is appropriate, it seems like the best thing to do would be just to remove the logo and not have one on the page at all, would you agree? SP-KP (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the logo currently in the infobox cannot be proven to be the correct logo, it seems logical to remove the logo. What is your evidence for being sceptical about using the textlogo.gif that on on the committee's website situated between the grouse logo and the Ziess logo? It does seem to have the right sort of letters and they are shown in the right sequence. Snowman (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've removed it. Re: the logo on the website - this is the only place I can find this image used. I've just checked a) a recent BBRC annual report, b) a recent "BBRC news & announcements" and c) Dean (2007)'s history of BBRC, and none of them contain this image. SP-KP (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • Images; I expect with 250 to 300 birds on the list you could find some really good images on commons for the page. Currently one image has a watermark, one is a bit rotated and the ?reeds in the water are all at an incline, and the seabird is a bit blurred, one bird has got leg rings on. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. How many would you like to see ideally? SP-KP (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some guidance on the max number of images on a page in MOS. Probably get more points for quality and relevance rather than quantity of images. For FA I think the watermark on the Greenish Warbler should be removed and the White's Thrush rotation corrected. The other images would probably be OK for FA, but overall I am a little disappointed in the resolution of the images selected. Some high-quality high-resolution images may add extra interest to the page, but if there is none available, so be it. Please note that I have not checked the copyright licences of the images. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have cropped and rotated the White's Thrush image and shown the new version on the page. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few other possibilities. Let me know what you think of these.

SP-KP (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at them quickly for now, but I expect some people would look at every detail of these images at high resolution. One has got a watermark that could be removed. I think that "Black-headed Bunting" is excellent, it is 2,000 × 1,333 px in size. Perhaps the main editors of the page can decide on what are the best and most relevant images. I have not checked the copyright licences. Incidentally, is there something more interesting for a caption than "Black-and-white Warbler, a species on the BBRC's list" and "White's Thrush, another species on the BRRC list". Snowman (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point re: the captions, I'm sure we can do better. As for the selection of images, I'll start a discussion on the talk page on this and we'll see where that goes. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a watermark on one of the images? Snowman (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of which images we use isn't resolved yet - current focus is on the problems with the text. Once they're sorted, I'll then switch my efforts to this last remaining problem. SP-KP (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it is work in progress. To me the visual aids currently shown in the article are disappointing. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

[edit]

Oppose Reluctant withdrawal of straight oppose: I do not think this particularly well-written, so if it's promoted, please tend to the writing regularly. Needs an independent copy-edit; not a quick job, either. Here are examples from the top of why significant improvements are required to achieve a professional standard.

Thanks for these comments - I can work on fixing these specifics, but you said that these are just examples. Are you aware of any editors who are experienced copy-editors who could help out with the task? SP-KP (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've posted a request at the Guild of Copyeditors page, but given that they have a big backlog, it would be useful if anyone else could help out, or knows of any editors who would. SP-KP (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in many species being removed from the committee's list to be classed as "scarce migrants"—the noun plus -ing issue. So easy to make more elegant, here by nominalising: "resulting in the removal of many species from the committee's list to be classed as "scarce migrants".
Fixed - please check. SP-KP (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But more seriously, I don't understand the meaning: remove it from the list and then it's classed as a scarce migrant? What was the list of, then?

Thanks. I'll address the style point. On the meaning point, the list is of "rare" species; "scarce" in this context means "not quite rare enough to be called rare". Can you think of a way in which we can make this clearer? SP-KP (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the lead, I'm desperate to know the basis on which a species is eligible to be called "rare". Is it a hard-and-fast set of criteria?
That's buried deeper in the text. I felt it was too detailed to go in the lead, but we could include it there if you felt that was necessary? SP-KP (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an annual report in British Birds magazine." Missing "the"? If you're not comfortable with "the", try "in the specialist magazine, British Birds.", or something like that.
Fixed - please check. SP-KP (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further down, it's referred to as a journal. There's a big difference. Which is it? And can you specify whether it's monthly or occasional or annual?

Google gives a similar number of hits for '"British Birds" magazine' and '"British Birds" journal', although '"British Birds" journal -magazine' wins out over '"British Birds" magazine -journal' by 3:2. BB's own website uses journal in the viewable text, and magazine in the HTML source! As many of the hits for magazine will come from Wikipedia or mirrors, I propose we rename that British Birds article and then use journal consistently in this one. SP-KP (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not good prose: "Its original purpose was to provide a means whereby uniform assessment standards could be applied to all rare bird records across Britain,[1] rather than each record being assessed according to different standards by local bird recording organisations, as had happened prior to then.[2]". Perhaps "was to develop and maintain a set of uniform standards for assessing records of all rare birds in Britain; until then, each record was assessed according to the standards and methods of local ..."? My lack of knowledge is a hindrance, but please reword somehow. Note the "noun + -ing" again.
Fixed - please check. SP-KP (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this for now until a consensus emerges on what we should do. SP-KP (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done brief a copy-edit. Please check, since I don't have the knowledge for final judgements in some cases.
Thanks, I'll work my way through these later. SP-KP (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "racial identification" the right wording? Does "racial" mean "species? Might be misunderstood by some readers, given politicial sensitivities.

Racial attribution is the term usually used in ornithological literature, though might be perceived as jargon? Race in this context means "subspecies" rather than "species". SP-KP (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do question every use of "also", please.
I've checked through and can't find any that seem obviously out of place. Let me know if you disagree. SP-KP (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "280", but "twenty"? Where is your boundary? I switched it.
That's fine. Did you find any others? SP-KP (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you talk of "assess(ment)", is this in the taxonomic sense? I find it scientifically a bit vague.
No, not taxonomic assessment, it means looking at the evidence presented (photos, written descriptions etc.) to establish if they provide enough evidence that the bird is/was the species that it is/was claimed to be, and not a misidentified example of a common species. SP-KP (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do the recordings/sightings contain? Is there a pro-forma that observers fill in, thus encouraging standardised data?
Typically, a description, a sketch and some background information on the sighting and the observer. More recently, most records have been supported by a photo, video or sound-recording, and some are specimen records. There is a standard form, which is available from the BBRC website. SP-KP (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the fact that full closing page ranges are not given, but I think MOSNUM says at least two digits are required.
All fixed (I think! Please check) SP-KP (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Choppy paragraphing in "Role and status". It may be OK, but can the sponsorship bit go last?
Order fixed, and some merging of paragraphs done. Let me know what you think. SP-KP (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The committee generally considers the records of only species which are rare enough to meet its criteria for inclusion on the BBRC rarities list"—but surely it must keep tabs on the next category up, lest it miss increasing rarity?
That's true - if we change "considers" to "assesses" would this deal with this point? SP-KP (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ten rare men" .... hmmmph, my gender-neutral antenna is beeping. It may have been dubbed this by Cocker in 2001, whoever s/he is, but I'd be very happy to drop that as gender-excusivist. Are there any female members? Potential talent might be turned off, frankly.
The phrase "ten rare men" dates from the early days of the committee, pre-dating Cocker's book by a few decades. It's a useful search term of historical interest, but that's all - I'll move it to the section which covers the lack of female members. SP-KP (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please attend to 87p488 and the like. Dot and space after "p".
I think these are all fixed now, please check. SP-KP (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed my pet hate: in order to". Never worked out the attraction to it.
Fixed, only one left, but it's in a direct quote. SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to date": which date? You might consider "since 2004", which is a little looser as to "the present" (which changes constantly). And perhaps evern "appointed 2004"?
Fixed. SP-KP (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still lots to fix. Tony (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Committee organisation

[edit]

Despite a list of over 60 assessors, I find the committee a little intangible in the article, so I am listing a number of questions to cover possible omissions. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, some answers below. Please let me know how you'd like me to change the article to address these points. SP-KP (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be amended by making additions to cover omissions. Try to imagine that you were explaining about how the committee worked to a new volunteer, or to explain what happens to a photo of a rare bird to someone who was submitting a photograph. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One sponsor is mentioned, and I wonder if anything about finances, cash flow, and payment to staff could be included. Is the British Birds magazine a sponsor? What are their main expenses? What are their sources of income. Are any of the helpers unpaid volunteers? What is their legal status? (ie plc, charity, hobby group, or something else). The word "volunteers" occurs only once in the article and that is in the infobox, so something is missing in the text, if the infobox is correct. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, BB is the "parent body" not a sponsor. I suspect that there isn't any published information about finances & cashflow. The funding comes (entirely, I believe) from Zeiss. All personnel are unpaid. The legal status is unclear (there's a section in the article covering this). SP-KP (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is little in the article about these funds and what the main expenses are. I saw the bit about status and I was specially asking about legal status - is it a plc or part of BB or what?. Has anyone tried to sue the committee? Is there a method of appeal for someone who saw a rare bird and disagreed with their conclusions? Do they make a profit? Who does the accounts? What is a "parent body"? If they are part of BB, then there may be something in their accounts. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll see what I can find out, but we might have to accept that this topic won't be covered as completely as we'd like, due to there not being any published material available to base any content on. SP-KP (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of published information is sometimes a problem, however, can a search be done for what exactly is the association between BB and the committee. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anything turned up? Snowman (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. I can keep trying though - is this a FA failure issue? SP-KP (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably not a failure issue any more in my opinion, but details about the sponsorship are obvious omissions for one reason or another. In-the-round, I am glad that my questions trawling omissions has turned up some new information. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the members actually meet in a room, if so where do they meet? How many meetings are there per year? How long does a meeting last? How many hours per week to the assessors do per week? Snowman (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the work used to be done by postal circulation, and is now done by email. There are one or two meetings a year. I think the assessors are expected to be able to commit up to 10 hours per week to their work at the busiest periods. SP-KP (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sound like something that could be added to the article. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll add some info to the article on this SP-KP (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs

[edit]

Please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page this links to gives me an error. Can you try it and let me know if the same happens to you? SP-KP (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try this. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've fixed most of these. I'd appreciate your advice on what I should do about the two remaining ones: it should be clear from the sentences in which they appear why I'm not sure about these two. SP-KP (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest delinking the dabs and linking the specific species. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That will mean that the first mention of "olivaceous warbler" and "Bonelli's warbler", unfamiliar terms to msny readers, won't be wikilinked. Is that OK? SP-KP (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, as linking to a dab page wouldn't help much. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've done these two now. Please can you check this resolves all dab links? SP-KP (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More recent comments

[edit]

Current status of this nomination:

  • Awaiting a reply from Tony1 on fixes applied in relation to his copyediting concerns (Tony1 is away until 22 Aug)
  • The issue of better quality images is outstanding and has been raised on the article's talk page.
  • Some other issues raised by Snowman left to resolve.

Does anyone else have any other concerns/issues/queries? SP-KP (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Current ref 3 (BBRC website) needs a publisher.
Fixed SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved SP-KP (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currrent ref 11 (BBRC website, Current rare..) needs publisher and last access date
Fixed SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved SP-KP (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 27 is just a bare url. Needs publisher, last access date and title at the very least.
This isn't a ref as such, more a link to show people where the data is online - it was in the text, but moved here due to style issues. SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs a formatted title at the least. And should have publisher and last access date just to fit in with the rest of the refs Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you say a formatted title, can you explain how that differs from what's there currently. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it myself, all done! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ResolvedSP-KP (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved SP-KP (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I read through the lead and the first section and found lots of problems indicating the prose needs work. WP:LEAD issues, ambiguous and unnecessarily passive language, and other problems exist. Examples follow, but they are not comprehensive—this needs an independent copyeditor. Recommend getting Jimfbleak or another experienced bird FA writer to go through the whole thing.
Good idea, which has been suggested by one reviewer already. I'll make an appeal at WP:BIRD. SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see where in the article the very first sentence of the lead is supported. Recognized by whom? In fact, the "Role and status" section only muddies the issue, and provides no reliable source definitively backing up that lead statement.
Good spot - this needs to change. Any thoughts on what phrase should I use instead? SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No suggestions, because I don't know what is supported in the literature. Rather than rewording, we need to find a reliable source that calls BBRC "regonized". --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have the answer - BBRC is recognised by the Association of European Rarities Committees as the body which represents Britain. If I add this statement to the Role & Status section, backed up by a reference to AERC's website, can we then leave the word "recognised" in the lead? SP-KP (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Penchant for using the ambiguous "this" in reference to previous statements needs to be corrected where unclear. Ex. "this has resulted in their removal from the committee's list and their classification" and "and this has led some observers to suggest that the committee sets too high a standard". In both cases, it's unclear exactly what "this" is referring to.
OK, this can be fixed easily enough. SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We seem to be relying on an anonymous editorial for some fairly important facts: the time and purpose of the foundation of this organization. We can't find anything better? Now that I think of it though, why is the editorial anonymous? It's written by the editor of the journal, right?
It's a convention in many bird journals that editorials aren't signed by their authors, and then when these are quoted, they're quoted as "anon". If that's not allowed here, we could user "The editors of British Birds" - would that work? SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer "Editor" or even "Staff" to "Anon". We know more information than "Anon" suggests. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Prior to this, records were assessed by local bird recording organisations using varying standards." Another ambiguous "this"; also, why passive voice when the subject is known?
No reason other than as a writer, I don't have the same aversion to using the passive voice that some other writers do. Would this be a bar to this article becoming an FA? If so, I could change it. SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my recent comment below re: passive voice. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the 'this' problem in this sentence - please check. On the passive voice question, this seems like one place where the passive voice is better, as the focus of the sentence is on the records and their treatment, not the local organisations. Let me know if you disagree. SP-KP (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "BBRC's constitution states that it 'has no automatic or legal expectation that birders submit records'." What does this mean, or what implications does it have to the theme of the para, which is the BBRC's "status"?
This sentence is intended to follow on from the comments made previously about the committee's official or statutory nature - to clarify that the committee itself has said that it in no way automatically requires observers to submit records. Is there a better way of making this point? SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand what it signifies, so I'm not sure how to answer your question. Are you saying they accept some observations without records? --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For many years, records of IRBC-assessed rarities were included in the BBRC's annual reports, but this ceased in 2002, at the request of IRBC." Just not well-written: "for many years" is too nebulous; passive again; why suddenly "the BBRC" when you've written just "BBRC" elsewhere? Much better: "BBRC's annual reports included records of IRBC-assessed rarities until the 2002, when they ceased at the request of IRBC."
Would you like the exact number years specified? I'm sure I can find that out. I'll remove the "the" - good spot. Same question as above re passive voice. SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact number of years would be ideal, or at least a more precise statement. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graphical aids: A flow chart of the steps that the committee take to classify a report might be useful? Possibly histograms of bird numbers and throughputs year by year. And possibly a chart of the hierarchy of the committee and associated committees. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas - I'll add this to the To Do list on the talk page. SP-KP (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved? SP-KP (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the people that submit observations? Snowman (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically anyone can - I'll try to find out if there's been any research into the demographics of the record-contributors. SP-KP (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that most of them are keen bird-spotting hobbyists with high-power cameras, but I am not informed about this by the article. To say anyone can send in a claim is probably correct, but it does convey any information of where the submissions are actually from. Snowman (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does something need to be said about the hobby of bird-spotting and sometimes travelling a long way in Britain at short notice to see a bird or birds? Snowman (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably something better included in an article on Birdwatching in Britain ? SP-KP (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think something about the observers should to be mentioned, because the submissions do not pop up from nowhere. I think that it will help to put the work of the committee in perspective, and the text might not seem so terse in places. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see from the references that "Rarities Committee news" is published, but the existence of this news is not mentioned in the text. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, please check. SP-KP (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dean (2007) lists the committee's purpose as "Application of uniform adjudication standards to claimed rare birds in England, Scotland and Wales". Based on the Wikpedia article I too was sceptical about this word, but Wiktionary gives an alternative, broader definition "to act as a judge" which is presumably what is really meant. Is there a better word we could use? SP-KP (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not sure how to fix it, then you might start a discussion about it on the talk page. "Ornithological sightings adjudication" is not quite the same as "Application of uniform adjudication standards" I would say. I think that "Ornithological sightings adjudication" could be misunderstood to mean conflict resolution, and I do not think that is in the business of sorting out disputes between two parties. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I think I have fixed it myself. I have amended the ambiguous part of the infobox. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new wording is good. SP-KP (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved SP-KP (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments: Some improvements are present, but I'm still not happy with the prose. I read just the last couple sections and found problems. Passive voice isn't a dealbreaker, but I ask you to consider whether it serves the reader in each case. If the sentence is twisted to bury the subject when the subject is the focus of the statement, passive is not ideal. If the sentence is twisted to eliminate the subject when the audience needs to know it, the passive is wrong. More sample issues:
    • "its policy is to watch patterns closely and reviewing those observers' past records on a regular basis." Parallel structure needed WRT "to watch" and "reviewing"
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Vittery contrasted the BBRC's attitude with that of other national rarities committees, and arguing that the result of the approach is to distort rarity statistics." Same problem, "contrasted" and "arguing".
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The record is currently being reviewed again by BBRC to establish if this earlier decision should be upheld." Language too recent, considering the only date even mentioned in the para is 1998.
Not sure I understand this comment - can you explain further? SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A BBRC subcommittee was set up in 1997 to undertake a review of rare bird records from the years immediately prior to the committee's establishment." Unclear what "the committee" is referring to. BBRC? The subcommittee? One has to read on and discover the 1950 statement to understand.
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The rationale for this is to ensure that all records ..." Another ambiguous "this"; does it refer to the establishment of the subcommittee or the review? Or both? Why not just "The purpose of the review was to ensure that all records ..."? Note the change in tense; I'm assuming the review isn't still going.
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... have been subjected to a similar level of scrutiny." As worded, means similar to each other since no object was specified (similar to what?). I'm assuming you actually mean similar to modern records.
Isn't that what it says, though - "ALL records since 1950" i.e. including the earliest and the most recent ones? SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most notable outcome of this review ..." Does ref 122 back up this statement, or does it just provide a summary of the reclassification?
Do you mean "Does ref 122 state that this the reidentification of the frigatebird was the most notable finding"? If so, no - I presume the concern here is that this statement is OR/POV on my part. That's a fair point. Can I say "arguably" or is that too weaselwordy? Should I avoid making a judgment on notability altogether? SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Of the 126 records reviewed, 37 were rejected as no longer being acceptable." Unwieldy. Consider the much cleaner "rejected as unacceptable".
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there were accepted for a review. What were they unacceptable for? Is "did not convincingly show the identity of the bird" or something like this better? Snowman (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the paper doesn't say. BBRC has a policy of not stating specific reasons behind its decisions. SP-KP (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean specific reasons. I was trying to explain that it does not explain properly. I think that is should convey the meaning that "the committee thought that the submission claiming that a particular rare bird was seen did not contain adequate corroborative evidence for the committee to view the submission as being accurate". Snowman (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I understand now. The paper detailing the results of the review says that "Most non-acceptances stemmed from the unfortunate brevity of published accounts or the lack of features that we now know to be crucial diagnostic characters." - does this help? SP-KP (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying this because I thought the article needed modification. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. What I need to know is if the quote I pasted above answers the query - if it does, I can put some words along these lines in the article to address the issue. If not, then I need to find something better. What do you think? SP-KP (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is lack of features? - presumably on photographs. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)a[reply]
What I think this means is that the written descriptions published did not contain enough detail to be sure that the bird was what the observers said it was i.e. the description could equally well apply to a common species. The observers may well have been certain that the species wasn't the common species, but they didn't capture on paper the reasons why they felt it a rare one. Very few rare birds in those days were photographed, and I'm pretty sure none of those rejected in the review had photographs, just written notes. SP-KP (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this uncertain from the reference if this is a photographic feature or an inadequate written description? I think that cameras were readily available during the time that you refer to. Snowman (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Here's the text. I think this makes clear we're talking about written documentation - what do you think? SP-KP (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparent problems:
  • The talk page is the main place for discussion on the article. Incidentally, there may be a copyright problem is copying so much and it may be better to delete the quotation. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was always my intention to do that - copying it here is a temporary measure to help you to determine whether your conclusion about the reasons for rejection matches mine. What do you conclude from the above? SP-KP (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of thing that could be a good topic for discussion on the talk page. Please note that I am not watching this page or the article. Snowman (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the long quotation, which looked like a copyright violation. Snowman (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the topic of the review of the 1950 to 1957 reports is a whole section in the article, I think it has several omissions of readily available information. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, please check SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, please check SP-KP (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, please check SP-KP (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Provisional conclusion on FA criteria 1b and 3: With regard to criteria 1b I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the article is not ready for FA status at this juncture, and, in addition, several apparent omissions in the published sources apparently stemming from lack of information about the sponsorship, and financial arrangements of the committee, and uncertainties about a logo, may have a tendency to make it more difficult for this article to attain FA status until this information is published. The images probably pass FA criteria 3, but I think that the visual aids shown in the article could be better, and I understand work is in progress. I have tried to be objective, but I regularly edit bird pages so I have a conflict of interest. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Birds_Rarities_Committee/FAC&oldid=1145613476"