Talk:Zino's petrel/GA1

GA Review

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

"However, conservation efforts had a major setback in August 2010 when fires killed three adults and 65% of the chicks." Which chicks? know nest? Is better to put the correct numbers not percentage. 65% was at that day, currently more have died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.180.47 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ucucha 19:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Nevertheless, it remains Endangered on the IUCN Red List"—I don't see a huge contradiction between having only 65–80 breeding pairs and being Endangered.~~

~~"More recently, some authorities have further split Fea's Petrel, separating the Desertas Islands breeding birds from those in the Cape Verde archipelago."—is that relevant to this article?~~

I suppose that I'm trying to show the state of flux in this group of very similar taxa, but it can go if you feel it's irrelevant

You already make that point explicitly, and I think the information about the taxonomic problems with this species already illustrate the point well.

~~Wouldn't the piece about Gibraltar petrels be more relevant to an article on the genus?~~

Given the relatively short time period, it's likely that the more numerous remains actually were Zino's, but since it's difficult to identify Macaronesian Pterodroma petrels even with their feathers on, it would be a bold scientist to claim a definite ID from bones. I'd rather keep this in

Does the source explicitly make that point, though? You could equally argue that it is probably an extinct species, because petrels in this area apparently usually breed on a single island or island group only. Ucucha 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but since the remains are either Zino's or a close ancestor, I think it belongs here. One of the points Harrap makes is that the Gib finds indicate that these Macaronesian Pterodroma sp were more widespread in the past, so I don't think we can say they are a different species because they were found elsewhere; the article says that they may have been a wreck anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"and the only known hybrid of either species is an individual which was a cross between Fea's and Bermuda Petrels."—again, this seems off topic; probably better to just say that Zino's is not known to hybridize with any other species.

It's obviously not RS as a scientific source, but I'm only using it to refer to the legend about the calls being were interpreted as being the calls of the suffering souls of the nuns. The pirate attacks are historical fact (with a reference), and I don't think that we will get a better RS source for a legend

What makes it an RS at all, though? How is it not just a random website where anyone can put what he wants? Ucucha 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definitely RS Bolt book tells of the pirate attacks on Curral das Freiras, Nun's Valley. The Portueguese name for the petrel is Freira, "nun". All the Windbird site is doing is explaining how the name Freira derives from the pirate attacks. Windbirds is not a site anyone can edit, it's a reputable commercial site, and it's simply confirming the widespread legend of how the bird's Portuguese name arose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it reputable, though? Per WP:RS, we need evidence that is has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in reporting". (I unsuccessfully tried to find another source for the statement.) Ucucha 11:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor me, although local birders always tell the story. If I take out the ref, we are left with the history of the pirate attacks on the nuns, the fact that the bird is called "the nun" and no connection between the two. Sooner or later, someone with Portuguese or Spanish will want to know why they are called Freira Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this. It looks like the source of the windbirds text, it's non-commercial, and is written by two professional ornithologists? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better. It might be even better to attribute it ("According to ornithologists A and B ..."). Ucucha 12:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changed ref, but not attributed since they are just repeating a familiar story, no research involved Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll pass it as a GA now. Ucucha 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reviewing, comments were as always very helpful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, unfortunately there has been a recent disaster for the species which I'll add soon. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]