Talk:Woodlark
 | Woodlark was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 25, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Would Burns have heard a Woodlark in Scotland?
[edit]- This old book from 1871 on British Birds indicates that there were Woodlarks in Scotland; see page 629. Snowman (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, Tree Pipits were also known as Woodlarks (I don't know why), and Tree Pipits were common to Ayrshire so it's likely Burns confused the two. Although this is interesting; we should probably keep both points in the article. With the conflicting sources, there's no way of definitively knowing whether Burns was referring to the Tree Pipit or Woodlark. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've added the reference to the article and named it. I'm not great with Roman Numerals, but the year on the title page appears to be 1871 to 1874, please correct me if I'm wrong. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 19:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the dates are correct. In this ornithology book the Tree Pipit has its own pages starting from page 569, so the book has descriptions of both the Woodlark and the Tree Pipit, which have different names is this book and so this book does not obviously appear to confuse the two species. Snowman (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, the Tree Pipit was referred to as the Woodlark in Scotland, where the Woodlark was either less common or non-existent. From what I can see, the Tree Pipit and Woodlark were common in England at the time. I'll email you the pages of the book that says so, if you'd like (which were originally sent to me by User:Jimfbleak. I wasn't able to find anything online that suggests Tree Pipits shared a name with the Woodlark for a time, but the book says so. I'm still new to writing articles, so whatever you feel is best to include, I'll go with. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 19:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the dates are correct. In this ornithology book the Tree Pipit has its own pages starting from page 569, so the book has descriptions of both the Woodlark and the Tree Pipit, which have different names is this book and so this book does not obviously appear to confuse the two species. Snowman (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- John Yeats has written "Wood-lark may sing from sandy fern, ..." in a letter about walking in Burns' country in Scotland; see Lines Written In The Highlands After A Visit To Burns's Country. Snowman (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if that helps. Yeats wasn't a naturalist or Scottish, and would have used the local word for the bird. Tree pipits and woodlarks have similar song flights, and its likely that the former acquired the woodlark name in Scotland where the lark is effectively unknown. I've run across similar transfers, such as "chough" moving from Jackdaw to its current owner, and beccafico from Garden Warbler to Orphean and other similar warblers. I'll see if I can trace Cocker's original for this. It does seem highly improbable that Burns would have known this southern lark Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thorn, Birds in SCotland pp.254-5 describes the woodlark only as a barely annual vagrant, with no suggestion that it has ever bred in that country Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- and the confusion is not only in Scotland, John Clare, a careful observer, wrote a poem called "The Woodlark" in which he gives sufficient detail, especially of the song flight, for it to be clear that the bird he called by that name was in fact the Tree Pipit. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean Birds in Scotland. Valerie M. Thorn and A. D. Poyser. (1986)? This book is much later than John Yeats (1795 - 1821) who would have known Scotland more than a hundred years before this book. Robert Burns (1759 – 1796) would have known Scotland about 200 years before this book. Would it be better to look at books contemporary to Burns to find out if Burns could have seen a Woodlark in Scotland? It is interesting that some old books report accounts of Woodlarks in south-west Scotland where Burns lived. If it is likely that Burns did not see a Woodlark in Scotland, then surly his account of another bird known as a Woodlark in Scotland should be removed from the article. Snowman (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can't just assume Burns wasn't writing about the Woodlark in his poem. While there is evidence to suggest Burns was writing about the Tree Pipit, several reliable sources also claim he was writing about the Woodlark. Both possibilities should be mentioned. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 14:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is often difficult to know what to do when RS conflict. Is there a RS that discusses conflicting RSs? Snowman (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Jobling, James A (2010). The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names. London: Christopher Helm. pp. 308–309. ISBN 9781408125014. discusses both sides. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 23:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think that adding what Burn's was writing about with an explanation of the different use of the word "Woodlark" in Scotland might be within the scope of the article. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Jobling, James A (2010). The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names. London: Christopher Helm. pp. 308–309. ISBN 9781408125014. discusses both sides. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 23:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is often difficult to know what to do when RS conflict. Is there a RS that discusses conflicting RSs? Snowman (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can't just assume Burns wasn't writing about the Woodlark in his poem. While there is evidence to suggest Burns was writing about the Tree Pipit, several reliable sources also claim he was writing about the Woodlark. Both possibilities should be mentioned. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 14:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean Birds in Scotland. Valerie M. Thorn and A. D. Poyser. (1986)? This book is much later than John Yeats (1795 - 1821) who would have known Scotland more than a hundred years before this book. Robert Burns (1759 – 1796) would have known Scotland about 200 years before this book. Would it be better to look at books contemporary to Burns to find out if Burns could have seen a Woodlark in Scotland? It is interesting that some old books report accounts of Woodlarks in south-west Scotland where Burns lived. If it is likely that Burns did not see a Woodlark in Scotland, then surly his account of another bird known as a Woodlark in Scotland should be removed from the article. Snowman (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- and the confusion is not only in Scotland, John Clare, a careful observer, wrote a poem called "The Woodlark" in which he gives sufficient detail, especially of the song flight, for it to be clear that the bird he called by that name was in fact the Tree Pipit. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thorn, Birds in SCotland pp.254-5 describes the woodlark only as a barely annual vagrant, with no suggestion that it has ever bred in that country Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if that helps. Yeats wasn't a naturalist or Scottish, and would have used the local word for the bird. Tree pipits and woodlarks have similar song flights, and its likely that the former acquired the woodlark name in Scotland where the lark is effectively unknown. I've run across similar transfers, such as "chough" moving from Jackdaw to its current owner, and beccafico from Garden Warbler to Orphean and other similar warblers. I'll see if I can trace Cocker's original for this. It does seem highly improbable that Burns would have known this southern lark Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why does the newly added range map show Scotland (and perhaps the north of England) in green? Snowman (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- The editing software I currently have only allows me to select entire countries (Scotland, England and Wales aren't divided on the map). This seems common to many websites (see [1]) and some books, so I thought it was better than nothing until I can produce a more accurate map. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 23:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- You could ask Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab to help. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- The editing software I currently have only allows me to select entire countries (Scotland, England and Wales aren't divided on the map). This seems common to many websites (see [1]) and some books, so I thought it was better than nothing until I can produce a more accurate map. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 23:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Woodlark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, before I review this article in depth, here are some essential issues at first glance. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sources need to be added after each paragraph. As of now, many sentences end without citation.
- The article is on the short side, but I'm sure more info could be squeezed out of the sources? It is not as if this is a largely unknown, remotely living bird.
- The description section seems a bit lacking. I can see many distinct features just on the images that are not mentioned in the text.
- The section could also use discussion of what differences there are between the subspecies.
- Taxonomy section is almost completely devoid of taxonomic info. Who described it, does it have junior synonyms? What are its relatives?
- this may help with the last two points, and this is the original placement in the genus AlaudaJimfbleak - talk to me? 12:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone there? FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- No response, failed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Range map
[edit]I have hidden the range map until someone with an svg editor can re-draw the overlay. By using country boundaries instead of the actual range, it gives an incorrect display of where the bird can be found. This is particularly so for Russia, where the bird's actual range is limited to the far western borders (see e-bird), yet the map displays the whole country to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. Loopy30 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)