Talk:Pigeon guillemot

To do

• Fix bare url refs. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Better source and clean up distribution section. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing done, clean up and expansion started. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Better source and expand start of behaviour section. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Expand status section. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

References to incorporate

Potential refs:

• Taxonomy and systematics

• Kidd, M. G.; Friesen, V. L. (1 January 1998). "Sequence variation in the guillemot (Alcidae: Cepphus) mitochondrial control region and its nuclear homolog". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 15 (1): 61–70. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025848.

• Feeding

• Litzow, Michael A.; Piatt, John F.; Abookire, Alisa A.; Robards, Martin D. (2004). "Energy density and variability in abundance of pigeon guillemot prey: support for the quality-variability trade-off hypothesis". Journal of Animal Ecology. 73 (6): 1149–1156. doi:10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00890.x. ISSN 0021-8790.

Feel free to add more here, but please organize them by section. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 06:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Pre- GAN/FAC

Some points to discuss prior to sending this off:

• The pigeon guillemot and the black guillemot form a superspecies.[4] - Surely this is contradicted by the preceding sentence - if anything it should form a superspecies with the spectacled guillemot? Similar issue in the lead. I would suggest taking out references to sister species or super species.

Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree—a sister species is a phylogenetic classification while a superspecies is a classification based on appearance. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I see it now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pigeon guillemot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this one before the others listed, since as a co-nomination, it will free you both up for nominating other articles for FA individually if you want. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• The infobox image seems a bit low res. What about something like these?[1][2][3]

• Changed. Moved the taxobox dmone down, wanted to show red mouth somewhere. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "There are five listed subspecies of the pigeon guillemot:" You should give a source here. Also, where are they listed?

• Changed to recognised and cited. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Breeding adult" Perhaps better to say "adult in breeding plumage", we don't know whether it was actually breeding... Also would be more consistent with what you have later, "winter plumage".

• Changed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Any cladogram and range map?

• Cladogram added. I'll work on a range map later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Could perhaps be interesting to show feeding individuals[4], a flying individual[5], or a group on cliffs.[6][7]

• I've added two of those and a more useful image of the nest/chicks, as well as one of a near-fledgeling (to contrast to winter bird). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• The two following images need infoboxes on Commons:[8][9]

• Replaced one, fixed one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• All size forcing of images should be removed, so that thumb size can automatically be adjusted to different screens. Seems to have been applied arbitrarily anyway. Why is the diving image so tiny, for example?

• No idea why it was there, fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "The specific epithet, columba, is derived both from the Icelandic klumba, meaning "auk", and the Latin columba, meaning "pigeon"." This seems a bit strange, is it what the source says? I find it rather improbable that Pallas in 1811 would use an Icelandic word for a bird not even found in Iceland...

• The source indicates Pallas was writing about the black guillemot. I'll investigate. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Am I interpreting the source right? It looks like it was named for the black guillemot, which was known as the greenland sea dove (and clearly the icelandic word was a corription of the latin Columba) [10] Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There definitely seems to be some sort of confusion. Perhaps Pallas' original text can be tracked down and checked... But looking at the Icelandic auk page[11], it seems some auks are called "klumba", so the relation to Columba may be conjecture by Pallas or later writers. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems that a lot of auks are named for doves and pigeons and even the black guillemot. See the OED on Dovekie [12]. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added that the columba was a reference to the related black guillemot's name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Why is it named after pigeons, due to resemblance?

• Pallas himself was unsure, it seems to predate him. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "other Classical writers." I don't think classical should be capitalised.

• Fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "The bird was later variously identified as a number of seabirds, including gulls, auks and gannets." Which bird? Specify for clarity.

• All of them. It isn't known which bird it referred to, and those have been suggested. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC

I mean does "the bird" refer to the Pigeon guillemot or the "kepphos"? FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it I hope. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "They find it difficult to take off in calm conditions" Seems a bit anthropomorphic. They have difficulty taking off?

• Fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "(compared to 58 km/h (36 mph) for the black guillemot)" Does this need to be in parenthesis? Looks awkward.

Fixed. Also, I changed "slightly faster" to "faster", as a 12mph difference isn't exactly "slightly". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "this doesn't provide" Avoid contractions.

Done! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "This display is antagonistic in a context where pigeon guillemots were in a group and often was the precursor to an attack." Unneeded change of tense. All the rest of the section is present tense.

• Fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "particularly rockfish (family Sebastidae)" Why do you give the family of this fish, but not any of the other species you mention?

• Rockfish can apply to any number of families. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Species that prey on the nests include the is the" Something is wrong.

• fixed by Meg Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• "square kilometres" You have metres, though the rest of the article appears to be in US English. I think it is something that can be changed in the conversion template.

• Fixed with abbreviations (which is consistent with the rest of the article). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Why are two sources listed differently in the refs?

• I see it, not sure why that happened. No, actually, I don't. Which ref is duplicated? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Not duplicated, I mean the two last two book refs. Usually such have their own subsection (cited works or some such), if they are not listed with the other refs. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, those. Probably left over. Removed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Everything looks fine to me now, so will pass. And nice you're making a range map, would be good to have ready before FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On to FAC

Thanks to Funkmonk for the GAN review. Two things to resolve before FAC.

• When creating the cladogram for the GAN I noticed the following paper which will need to be mentioned

• Smith, N.A. (2011). "Taxonomic revision and phylogenetic analysis of the flightless Mancallinae (Aves, Pan-Alcidae)". ZooKeys. 91: 1–116.

• Creating a range map. I was going to base it off the HBW - but their map has a massively expanded winter range at sea which contradicts the written sources. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Also why is Pallas, 1811 in parentheses? Surely that's only done when the species is renamed to denote the original author, and this species has not changed. Unless there is another reason to do it? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of another reason; I'll remove the parentheses. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

'deadly'

The use of the word 'deadly' twice in this article, attributed to IUCN, seems to be a typo. The description of that status does not signify 'deadly'. IUCN describes this bird as of 'least concern', as stable. 2601:602:80:5FA0:CC:FE0:40AE:B8A9 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

it was vandalism. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)