Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barn owl/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Barn owl

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well-known bird found nearly worldwide which here in the UK has almost iconic status. I have spent much time expanding the article and (hopefully) improving it and nominated it for GA back in July. Unfortunately the backlog there meant it has not been reviewed and after seven weeks I decided to bring it straight to FAC. This means you had better be extra pernickety in pointing out its faults! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

I'm very pleased to see a FAC for this important bird. These are some initial thoughts.

  • It would be better if the article used a structure similar to that recommended by WikiProject Birds: Taxonomy, Description, Distribution and habitat, Behaviour, Breeding, Food and feeding, Threats or Survival, Relationship to humans, Status. Some of this is arbitrary but many bird FAs use this model and the existing heading of Ecology with 5 subheadings is odd.
I have rearranged the sections and their titles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the "Lifespan and predators" section on the posturing of an angry owl seems out of place.
Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article in British English or US English? It has "colour" and "neighboring".
Its trying to be British! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to return with more comments. Aa77zz (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I look forward to more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more comments:

  • The taxonomy content of the Taxonomy and etymology section needs to be expanded. How does the barn owl relate to other owls?
Partially done. I have difficulty relating it to other species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Locally superabundant ..".[3][30][31][32][33][34]. Are six cites needed?
Reduced to 3. I could replace them all with the excellent Taylor but am endeavouring to use a variety of sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The References section has many small problems with inconsistency of the formatting.
Working on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 7 and 12 cite Mátics & Hoffmann (2002) - which is only detailed in Fn 25.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources are not suitable - Fn 38 Physics Today, Fn 39 UF News
Removed or replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunning (1992) need page numbers
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography - formatting needs to be consistent - chapter title should be in quotes etc - I suggest cite book for all.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When these are sorted I'll read the whole article through carefully. Aa77zz (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The expandable subspecies list lacks citations for much of the content. Is this all from Bruce? If so then perhaps there should be a general cite somewhere at the top of the table. Aa77zz (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subspecies information all comes from Bruce. In a GAN I did recently I was told to give a citation for each of the subspecies in the table so I have done this for barn owl. However I have now put an additional citation before the collapsible table. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy and the IOC

The quote in the Taxonomy section "a review of the whole group [is] long overdue" dates from 1999. In the last 15 years a number of articles have been published that look at DNA sequences.

The Wikiproject guide states that the IOC World Bird List should be used for taxonomy. The current list (Version 4.3) divides the subspecies into two groups, one species Tyto alba called the Western Barn Owl and the other species Tyto delicatula called the Eastern Barn Owl. The Eastern species includes as subspecies T. d. sumbaensis, T. d. meeki, T. d. crassirostris and T. d. interposita. However, it seems that the IOC have doubts as a note states that the split of Tyto delicatula from T. alba "may need to be revisited". The reference to Wink et al 2004b in the notes appears to be an error as the article only has alba is here. A key article appears to be:

Wink, Michael; El-Sayed, Abdel-Aziz; Sauer-Gürth, Hedi; Gonzalez, Javier (2009). "Molecular Phylogeny of Owls (Strigiformes) Inferred from DNA Sequences of the Mitochondrial Cytochrome b and the Nuclear RAG-1 gene". Ardea. 97 (4): 581–591. doi:10.5253/078.097.0425. (if you don't have access send me an email)

From this article it appears that the subspecies are split in the book Weick F. 2006. Owls (Strigiformes). Annotated and illustrated checklist. Springer.

The delicatula split hasn't been adopted by the online version of Handbooks of Birds of the World which lists 28 subspecies of T. alba. I don't have a subscription and thus cannot see whether this is discussed in the article.

I have no experience of how these cases are handled on Wiki. Perhaps Jimfbleak may be able to advise. I know he has access to HBW. The wiki article certainly needs to mention the split and use up-to-date sources. Bruce is too old here. Aa77zz (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on this. I have access to the barn owl article in HBW which is said to have been updated in 2014. If I used that year rather than 1999 in the citation would that help? I don't have access to the article you mention above so am sending you an email. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a more recent reference (without the quote) would be an improvement. I also think that "While this may be warranted, such a move should await further research into barn owl phylogeography." seems a little like editorializing.
I do not know how closely wikipedia articles adhere to the IOC list but to do so would mean splitting off T. a. delicatula as a separate species (as has been done on French wiki). König & Weick (2008) also split off the American Barn Owl (T. furcata). The IOC note that the "split of American Barn Owl furcata from alba under consideration". I think we need input from other editors as to whether to follow the IOC. The fact that Tyco alba has the greatest distribution of any bird is suspicious - it seems a little surprising (to a very much non-expert) that a bird species that does not migrate could have a world-wide distribution. Aa77zz (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This book splits the subspecies:

  • König, Claus; Weick, Friedhelm (2008). Owls of the World (2nd ed.). Christopher Helm. ISBN 978-0-7136-6548-2. (note that I've used the cite book template)

but uses "Common Barn Owl" for Tyto alba and "Austalian Barn Owl" for Tyto delicatula. The book contains an article on phylogeny by Michael Wink. A Google Preview is available here. Aa77zz (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to explain the situation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you for addressing my queries so efficiently. "extra pernickety"? Aa77zz (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (1 request Done)

Thank you. I have added the source information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

This species needed a proper article, and you have put plenty of work into this. A few quibbles though.

  • It is also referred to as the common barn owl, to distinguish it from other species in the barn owl family Tytonidae which—You could avoid a repetition by something like "in its family Tytonidae"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and by some authors its Lesser Antilles populations insularis and nigrescens still are.—clunky structure
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a varying amount of tiny blackish-brown speckles—"speckle" is a countable noun, "number", not "amount"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • usually at altitudes below 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) ASL—the acronym and link seem unnecessarily complicated, either write out "sea level" or just leave it out as assumed
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • on a rocky island off the coast of California—named?
I don't know. The incident is mentioned at greater length in Taylor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the cited article the incident took place on Castle Rock, off Crescent City, California. The short paragraph published in the Condor is available online here. I checked the reference as only one page was specified - which turned out to be correct - but the author's name was misspelled and the year was wrong. The author "disposed of the owlets" - which isn't quite "was successfully reared" as stated in the wiki article. Aa77zz (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is also available from JSTOR. Taylor provides an incorrect reference which has been copied into the article without checking. Aa77zz (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article and reference have been changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pound for pound, barn owls consume more rodents—I don't like the US version, "weight for weight" or "kilo for kilo" would be better
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the nests of other birds such as the hamerkop—add "large" before "nest"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the barn owl is a prolific breeder and able to recover from short-term population decreases, they are
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about parasites, there is plenty out there, eg this
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [23][24][7]—This is not in numerical order (I didn't check whether there were others
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bruce, M. D. (1999) has the page numbers in the bibliography, the other books have them in the short form, looks inconsistent
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30 has an incorrectly formatted link which appears to be dead anyway
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
It basically all comes from Handbook of Birds of the World which I have sourced at the beginning. I am just about to go away for the weekend. I will deal with your comments on my return. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Could the info be cited to that source, just to be safe? FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It always irks me a bit when images interfere with headings, could the one under description and the one under breeding be moved to the right?
  • On second thoughts, maybe the Audubon image is a bit inappropriate under description?. He was notorious for posing his birds in quite unlikely postures, for compositorial effect (see for example[2]), as also seems to be the case in that image. It is a nice image, but maybe of more cultural than anatomical value. At least a more representative image could come first under description. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be nice with a photo of the eggs, perhaps this one?[3] FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have quite a few more interesting "in flight" images than the one used.[4] In general, I think we have nice unused images on Commons that could make the article more visually interesting.
I have taken up most of these suggestions and made some changes to the images. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I'll add further comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seem to be worthy of recognition as long as the species is not split up." What is meant by this? They are only worthy of recognition if the species is not split up? How?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked the licenses and sources of the newly added images, they are fine, so further image review is not needed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a time when she flies little and the male feeds her so she does not need to fly." Isn't one of these redundant?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " an angry barn owl lowers its head and sways it from side to side, or the head may be lowered and stretched forward and the wings drooped while the bird emits hisses and makes snapping noises with its bill." Both adults and chicks? I've only seen videos of chicks doing this... FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently adults do it as well according to Witherby. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which forms one of the two main lineages of living owls, the other being the typical owls (Strigidae)" This info is only in the lead, but should be in the article as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "except polar and desert regions, Asia north of the Himalayas, most of Indonesia and some Pacific islands." Likewise, there should be no info in the intro that is not found in the article as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The information is the same but expressed in a different way but I have rephrased the info in the Distribution section slightly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]
  • Need to say it is either a species or species complex/superspecies in lead and in article, if it can be sourced - reflecting the split in current taxonomy.
I haven't found mention of it as a species complex. The word "species" is in the lead and I have added it to the beginning of the Taxonomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC currently lists it as two species, with a question mark over whether furcata should be split (and delicatula recombined). I don't think we can just ignore this in the lead - there should be a sentence along the lines that it is one, two or possibly three species - this is generally called a superspecies or species complex and I would be surprised if this can't be found in a source somewhere. I am travelling for another day or so and will have a look when I get a chance. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more information on the results of a phylogenetic study. A search in Google Scholar for "Tyto alba" + "species complex" brought up nothing, but "Tyto alba" + "superspecies" brought up this. I can't access more than the abstract but it includes the sentence "Previous studies of the eastern Barn Owl's diet in Australia, and of the wider Barn Owl complex (formerly Tyto alba) internationally, have found that this superspecies ...". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Konig and Weick recognise three main species plus split off some others. Given this book is pretty definitive and quoted elsewhere this should be added I think. There is some material on page 47 and 48 worth adding (I can see it in Oz, not sure if you can in UK?). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Need to add that the Iranian paper didn't test delicatula and doesn't seem to comment on placement of it - the fact that they just report its previous placement the end seems to indicate that they accept that it is more divergent (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I think that the Iranian paper accepts that the delicatula lineage is divergent, hence the line Phylogenetic evidence shows that there are two distinct groupings of barn owl, one in the Old World and one in the New, but further research needs to be done to clarify whether these should be regarded as separate species - should read "Phylogenetic evidence shows that there are at least three major lineages of barn owl, one in the Eurasia and Africa, one in Australasia and one in the New World, with possibly some highly divergent taxa on islands, but further research needs to be done to clarify whether these should be regarded as separate species" or something similar, and noting that some authorities recognise up to five species possibly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with these points as best I can. I have added to the lead and rearranged the taxonomy section a bit and am more satisfied with it. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to add rationale of those publishing the split as to why they think the split should happen.
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't see it - where? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the second half of the third paragraph in "Taxonomy and etymology". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC) (Now moved to the second paragraph) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Across its vast range, the barn owl has formed many subspecies, - "formed"....sounds weird in transitive here...another verb?
I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The barn owl is considered to be the most widespread landbird species in the world, occurring in every continent except Antarctica.' - is it or isn't it? why have "considered" at all?
I prefer to use the word "considered" as you can't be sure, nobody having counted these or other birds on a world-wide basis or established their precise ranges. On further thoughts, it is stated in the source so I might as well say it too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally a medium-sized owl, there is considerable size variation across the subspecies. - change of subject here. I'd split these two clauses and align elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's a hefty first clause with four double-barrelled adjectives in it! I think I'd take "pale-coloured" out of it and move down to the text on coloration. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before starting to lay eggs,.. --> "Before laying eggs,..." will suffice
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some species have Latin names listed while others don't....should make them all or none I think.
I think they all have scientific names now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on - my free time is really patchy. Will give this another read-through soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The barn owl is known by many common names which mostly refer to its pale colouring or silent flight. - I think I'd remove this from the lead. Alternate names are uncommon.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link "described" to species description
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The barn owl has been introduced into the Hawaiian island of Kauai in an attempt to control rodents - has it survived/thrived/just hung on...?
Thrived, with unintended consequences. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tarsometatarsus - if this is being used as an adjective, surely it should be " tarsometatarsal"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, prose and comprehensiveness looking good now. I haven't looked at the sourcing and will make some spot checks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still on this, Cas? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok hang on....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*The behaviour and ecological preferences may differ slightly even among neighbouring subspecies, as shown in the case of the European T. a. guttata and T. a. alba that probably evolved, respectively, in allopatric glacial refugia in southeastern Europe, and in Iberia or southern France - is supported by 3 refs - fn 12 aligns with prose but I can't figure out why fn 28 is there, and it links to the author's main page not the study. If there is a South American example then worth adding, or otherwise remove fn 28...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No longer available as a pdf apparently. Reformatted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if that source is about Ecuador, is there something from Sth America worth adding? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That reference predates my involvement and is no longer available online, as far as I can see. As I don't know what it says, I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think we have any other choice here...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, in southern Europe and the tropics, the birds seem to be strictly nocturnal - and preceding sentences supported by fn 24. The source says " Iain Taylor points out that the owls in his study area were very rarely mobbed, but he states that in the tropics those Barn Owls which hunt diurnally are violently mobbed by a wide variety of birds, ranging from starlings to crows" as well as "and (Iain Taylor) further considered that those of northern Europe are the most diurnally active of all the world’s Barn Owls, with those of southern Europe and the tropics being strictly nocturnal." - so it slightly contradicts itself. Also the wording is a bit too close for comfort and should be distanced from the source. Furthermore Australia is omitted - are birds nocturnal there? I rescued one in the daytime as it was being mobbed by ravens and currawongs......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased this bit. Better? I don't know about Australia (does it qualify as a Pacific island?) and can only follow the sources I have. If you rescued one, it was presumably roosting in a too-open location rather than hunting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult - i would have said "exclusively" as more of a synonym than "largely", though it list exceptions (??). Need to see some other refs I think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to "almost exclusively". It will be in the Taylor book, but I won't have access to that until Monday, when I can borrow it from the public library again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do. that wording is okay I meant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first use fn 32 should be put forward to the full stop before the comma where it is as it refers to superabundant rodents but I don't see 3/4 of diet.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I don't see where this sentence "Such animals probably make up at least three-quarters of the biomass eaten by the barn owl except in some island populations" is referenced at all as I can't see it in fn 32 or 33. It is sort of redundant given the following sentence.
Removed and rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
spotcheck - fn 24 ok.

Ok - much of what is left is sourced by book sources. A few errors above but other material was sound. I can't see any issues outstanding after my spotcheck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know when you're all done, Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Barn_owl/archive1&oldid=1136098715"