Talk:White-breasted nuthatch

Vandalism

Someone turned the image of the bird upside-down 81.156.197.89 11:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• They didn't, the bird is standing upside down or they did.

"They forage on the trunk and large branches of trees, and are well-known for descending head first, a behavior unique to the white-breasted nuthatch." 201.26.57.152 14:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Can somebody turn the image the right side up

--Abyab 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the snow. The bird is right side up.

• Not an appropriate rule. The snow could b under the branch

--Abyab 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. Nuthatches typically walk upside down on trees. Search for other images of them online, and you will see this as common. Stopde (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Who put "lacks the ability to fart", and was that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.70.133 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

White-breasted Nuthatch Prettiness

• Okay, even though the bird extremely pretty uside down, it would be a great addition if we could see it the right side up

--Abyab 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe upload an alternative picure, but the original is a natural depiction of the bird in real life so we should leave it alone. Shawnc 19:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not put a picture on the page with the bird standing on a branch right side up and leave the current one?~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencenut1113 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hedgehog?

I find the line about the white of the face being larger than a hedgehog confusing. I believe that a hedgehog is larger than an entire nuthach and certainly bigger than its face. Is this referring to the amount of white on a hedgehog, perhaps?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:White-breasted Nuthatch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Lead

• "Adults and young may be killed by hawks, owls and snakes, and forest clearance may lead to local habitat loss, but this is a common species with no major conservation concerns over most of its range." I would split this sentence after snakes.

 Done

Description

• "The wing coverts and flight feathers are blackish with paler fringes," blackish sounds a bit vague to me.

 Done - it's what the book says, but changed to very dark gray

Okay. If you want to revert it to blackish, since that's the source, then fire away. If you can find any other source might perhaps clarify what colour, it might also be a good idea. Peanut4 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The face and the underparts are white, and the white of the face extends around the eye." I might suggest re-writing this to "with the white extending around the eyes." or " ..., which extends ..." However, I'm not sure why you need the second clause. Isn't the eye part of the face? I might be missing something here.

 Done removed clause - it's actually a key difference from other NAm nuthatches, but I say that later anyway

Yeah, I noticed this later on. I think your change is a good one. It doesn't need saying too much. Peanut4 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Breeding

• "Once independent, juveniles leave the adult’s territory," I think this should be "adults'" since there are two parents.

 Done Oh, the shame of it - I pride myself on correct possessive apostrophes.

Lol. Had a similar one myself. I wanted to cry when I saw someone correct it!! Peanut4 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Survival

• Is there a wikilink for "diurnal"?

 Done

• "this makes it more difficult for predators to use scent find the nest." I think there's a word missing here.

 Done rephrased for clarity ...this makes it more difficult for a predator to find the nest using its sense of smell.

Status

• Is there a wikilink for "Least Concern"?

 Done

General

• All numerals followed by units should do so with a non-breaking space. E.g. 29 birds.

 Done not sure that "bird" is a unit, but done any way

A few things to do, but nothing substantial, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, jimfbleak (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I've left a couple of notes above, which might help further changes. Otherwise a nice article. Not sure it's long enough for FAC, but there's not much other improvements I could suggest if you did want to go to FAC. It's a really nice article, with some very good images. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous section for any minor nitpicks before FAC

The nine subspecies differ mainly in the color tone of the plumage. - should this be 'colour and tone' ? Sounds odd using them as a ...combined noun? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion, would it be possible to add a small sentence about how its size compares to other nuthatches (ie. is it an average sized Nuthatch?), and possibly a comparison to the red-breasted nuthatch?

..and the small Brown-headed and Pygmy Nuthatches have brown caps and a white patch on the nape of the neck. - could get into trouble here as 'caps' (plural) disagrees with 'patch' (singular). However, pluralising patch sounds weird too and introduces ambiguity..so I am not sure what to do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Otherwise, reads very well. I'd say go for thy life. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll fix the above, have a final read tomorrow, then go for it

update 2018

I've been through to see if any updating is needed, but apart from some minor formatting tweaks, there is nothing in the current HBW alive that supersedes what is here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I just made a layout on the images + expanded the article a little bit about its parasites. Perhaps if you guys can take a look. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White-breasted nuthatch. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171207141500/https://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/fnr/html/faculty/swihart/pdf/99JWDis_LatrinevisitsBaylis.pdf to http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/fnr/html/faculty/swihart/pdf/99JWDis_LatrinevisitsBaylis.pdf

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

New photo

As these are some of my favorite birds, I was happy to take this photo last week, which captures that very typical nuthatch pose (lifting its head while facing downward). It was recently promoted to FP on Commons and I looked for a good spot to add it to the article, but I'm not so sure. It might make sense as a new infobox photo, but I don't want to presume since the current one is quite good, too, and the article is an FA. Figured I'd ask here before adding it there or elsewhere. Jimfbleak what do you think? No worries if the article is full when it comes to images. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, the existing image is also an FP, but that doesn't mean it can't be replaced, especially as it has had a good run in the infobox. You could replace it with your excellent image, and perhaps use the old image in place of one of the in-text images. Why not suggest that, and if no one comes up with a convincing reason not to do so in a couple of days, then just go ahead. Although there are 80 people watching this page, I doubt that more than 20-odd are actively doing so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Just a heads up that, absent any other comments over the last month, I went ahead with it. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)