Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Leicestershire and Rutland/archive1

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:02, 18 June 2010 [1].

List of birds of Leicestershire and Rutland

[edit]

List of birds of Leicestershire and Rutland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all the criteria, and is ready for scrutiny Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not realistic. Unless I've made a mistake, all the images are of the subspecies that occur in Leicestershire or Rutland, so there is no inaccuracy in terms of what is shown. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The captions do not indicate where the bird photographs are from, and I think that it makes the article bizarre to have photographs of birds from elsewhere. I feel cheated to find out from the image description on commons that the Mallard is actually in Germany. Have you tried looking for photographs of local birds? I guess that there would be enough local wild bird photographs available. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just checked flickr and found photographs of Mallards in Rutland within two minutes, so I find it inexcusable to use a photograph taken in Germany of this common bird. The Robin illustration is a photograph in Ireland and so it is not a local Robin, and I find this abysmal also. I think that all of the current images should be removed and then the page can be re-illustrated with local bird photographs only. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When some relevant photographs are displayed the alt text can be added. Snowman (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that alt text was still a requirement, but no big deal anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked at the rules for a while, so I expect you are right about the new rules. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the photographs are of unknown or unclear location. Snowman (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the photos of the birds are clear, aren't they? Isn't that the point of these images? To illustrate the subject, i.e. the bird? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that bird images from outside Europe have been replaced (one from New York and one from India). Snowman (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although the New York one was OK as to ssp, there was bound to be a european pic, Indian was wrong ssp as detailed below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the format could be improved. Lines starting with the common name followed by a comma, then the binomial name in italics, then preceding to comments without any punctuation are not easy to scan. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could put a full stop after the binomials, or did you have something better in mind? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a quick fix. Or a hyphen, as you have already put a hyphen towards the beginning of the lines. Why not see what this looks like? Tables would take a long time to write. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably do a table, a bit of find/replace and it doesn't take too long. Give me a day or two to sort this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for completing table Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"List of birds of..." articles always deal with apparently wild birds. I suppose bird zoos could be in a "see also", but I don't think they fit there personally Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about a file name "List of wild birds of xyz". On commons people (not me) are starting to add zoo categories as subcategories of birds by country categories. The file name here is "List of birds of xyz", and this intuitively includes captive birds as well. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't commons, and I don't think it is intuitive that parrots and eagles would be expected in a list for a British county. It's inconsistent to object to images of birds found in the county but photographed elsewhere, but to push for the inclusion of zoos. What existing featured list of this type includes zoos? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably enough to list the zoos, rather than all the species in the zoos. There is nothing wrong with starting a new trend of listing zoos. This is not a list of wild birds it is a list of birds, and it would be logical to subdivide the page into wild birds and captive birds. "If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got." Snowman (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I've specifically excluded escapes and captive birds, as does the official British list Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Snow Goose is a feral or captive released bird. It does not sound to me like this is living in the wild naturally as the introduction would indicate. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red Kite - I guess that this bird was native here and then re-introduced somewhere near by. I am aware of Red-Kites being re-introduced in Oxfordshire (and perhaps some other places) and spreading out from there. Saying that it is introduced tends to imply that it never lived here before. Where Red Kites actually introduced here (as the article implies) or did they spread form successful re-introductions elsewhere? Snowman (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified that they have spread from Northants reintroduction. Jimfbleak - talk to me?
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I've added dates of last breeding where it's more than 25 years ago. I follow LROS in treating birds which last bred more recently as occasional breeders rather than ex-breeders Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a bird be on the list if it has not been seen in the area for 150 years? Why not have a bird that has not been seen in the area for 1000 years? Snowman (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Usually 1500 AD is taken as the cut off date for recent extinction, but obviously you need reliable evidence to get back to that date. It's possible that LROS and Fray et al have missed something, but I don't know of anything. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a very large owl that disappeared in the UK? Snowman (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's often claimed that the Eagle Owl once bred in the UK, but there is no proof, and it's not on the BOU official list (unlike the Great Auk). It may have occurred in the very distant past, but that's way beyond the 1500 AD mark, and regional bird lists don't include prehistoric fossils. Recent occurences have been claimed as natural recolonisation, but are often proved to be escapes (this is a very sedentary species, reluctant to cross water). The Snowy Owl is a rare visitor which has sometimes bred in the far north. Neither is on the Leicestershire and Rutland list. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main source covers those, added pages as refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section headings should be converted to common names for the bird orders. As part of the wiki the format of this list should be consistent with other regional bird lists. Snowman (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do soon, probably when doing table Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Osprey. I recall that the current Rutland birds were specially raised from the Scottish population after being reared from chicks. Would this be an introduction or a re-introduction? I thought that the Osprey was once a bird throughout England and Scotland, then there were no birds in the UK, and then some migrated back to Scotland of their own accord. Snowman (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a natural recolonisation of Scotland. Fray says there is no evidence that the species that the species ever bred in Leicestershire, so it's an introduction. Although it's possible that the species bred in the distant past, there is no known evidence for this. The first avifauna for the counties gave passage records back to 1840, but no mention of them ever having bred. If you take away the Victorian and later man-made reservoirs, the counties have no sizeable natural lakes to attract the species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there are any guidelines. I'm quite happy for you to add a NOTOC if you think that's better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The TOC box looks too long to me, but it can not be removed without being replaced with something. I have seen long TOC boxes discussed in FAs and shortened. What about using a custom made index section, as can be seen in other bird lists? Snowman (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • First, a comment on Snowman's image location concern, I see no problem on having images of birds in locations other than Leicestershire or Rutland. To "feel cheated" and find it "abysmal", in my opinion, is really overly dramatic. The bird needs to be illustrated, not the background.
  • I think it's permissable to link Leicestershire and Rutland in the lead, some of our non-UK readers would probably appreciate it.
  • "bird recording" I think this needs to be hyphenated.
  • "The Great Crested Grebe is the LROS emblem" complete sentence, needs a full stop.
  • Is there a reference for that caption, by the way?
  • Third para of lead appears to be entirely unreferenced.
  • "ten – 100 birds occurring or pairs breeding annually" 10–100 would be fine in this instance (and why spaced en-dash, why not unspaced?)
  • Common –1000... space after the en-dash here though!
  • Abundant –more... and here!
  • "is s required" spare s.
  • "at a temperature of +3 deg with sun trying to shine, when the reservoir was frozen over" not required in the caption
  • I think that this is an interesting and relevant caption. The caption could be shortened slightly without losing information. Shelducks are seen in the winter in this locality. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think we need to link either egg or fish.
  • You have sea-bird in the lead and seabird in the list.
  • "Grey Heron." full stop not required.
  • "BBRC [7]" remove space between text and ref. Ditto for "BBRC [10]".
  • The "Swifts" table is malformed.
  • "Wren at the nest." no full stop here.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think my disappointment of not seeing local birds in local settings here is appropriate. Put your self in the position of a person from the locality or near by. Yes; I feel cheated to find bird images from elsewhere. I think that there is no excuse for using bird photographs from elsewhere. Knowing that local bird photographs are available, to me showing bird photographs from elsewhere seems to be wrong; although, I am sure their addition was well intended, and I apologise for using the word "abysmal" to describe the editors well intended additions of showing the German Mallard and the Irish Robin. I have replaced the German Mallard with a local Shelduck. I think that showing an Irish Robin on this page is inappropriate, and I think it will disappoint a lot of readers. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we're all entitled to our opinions, but attributing nationality to animals is an usual thing to (a) do and (b) worry about, as far as I'm concerned. Trying to remove all images based on this bizarre approach really will wreck the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have promoted a discussion on this topic on the WP Bird Talk page. To reiterate, Creative Commons local bird photographs are available on flickr. I think that it is bad science and unnecessary to use non-local images. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent. I'd prefer to see good and reliable images of the bird than "local" images (like the mallard one on Flickr) which was of relatively low quality. I think our readers will be more disappointed by poor images of birds. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ruff image: The caption reads "Displaying male Ruff". According to the table the Ruff does not breed in this locality, so the a bird would never display like this in Leicestershire or Rutland. I think this image from an unspecified location is actively misleading. Snowman (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common Tern image: The bird is taking a fish back to the nest for the young in New York, USA. This seems an illogical choice for a photograph on this page, because the bird is a rare breeder at this location and this scene would be exceedingly rare at this location. Snowman (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have misread the table, it's uncommon, not rare. Up to 70 pairs breed annually, and passage flocks of similar size have recorded away from the breeding lakes. I expect to see this plumage in the county in spring. US subspecies is the same as W. Europe, I've nevertheless changed the image for one of an Arctic Tern from Europe.Jimfbleak - talk to me?
  • Little Ringed Plover image: The bird is in breeding plumage in India. This seems an illogical choice for a photograph on this page, because this plumage phase would be rarely seen at this location. Snowman (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's bred in the counties regularly for at least 50 years, up to 30 recorded pairs, not bad for an inland wader, and like Common Tern, it's always possible to see this plumage in spring. However, the Indian bird might be jerdoni, which although identical as far as I can is not correct, so changed for a Lapwing pic. No ssp and an abundant bird. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "waterbirds" - does this have a strict definition? If wikilinked, it would redirect to "ducks, geese and swans", so can it be replaced with ducks, geese and swans? or is it intended to have a wider meaning that this? Snowman (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fray et al says all records are probably local escapes, not birds from the established feral populations further south in England, so it's not on the county list.
  • "There are nine introduced species with that maintain themselves without necessary recourse to further introduction." - there are many ways of supporting introduced populations and further introductions is one of them. I presume that this is meant to imply that the populations thrive totally independently. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's the wording used in the county list. Although it's more verbose than "self-supporting feral population", it does spell out that a species that relies on further introduction doesn't count. Chukars were frequently released, but died out when that became illegal, so they aren't on the list, unlike Red-legged Partridge which is assumed to be self-sustaining. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's correct. Pheasant and Red-leg undoubtedly get further introductions, but both are are clearly viable without these. The others, like Little Owl have no support at all, and the Ruddy Duck survives despite active culling. Obviously over longer time scales things might change (it looks as if lady Amherst's Pheasant is virtually extinct in the UK), but no sign of any change at present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression. I edit bird pages and I have tried to be objective to reduce any conflict of interest in commenting on this bird article. The list has shaped up, but I think that not mentioning on the page that bird photographs shown on this page are not all from the locality is a major flaw. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think that the list looks good and that it has reached FL standard. Nevertheless, perhaps keen copy editors may have more to say. Snowman (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
**Any chance you can cap any of your resolved comments please Snowman? This page is becoming far too large and is, not doubt, putting off other reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have seen much larger lists of comments for FACs. If this page is too large (which it is not), then the FLC can be restarted. I have put a strike though my resolved issues. I hope that other editors will put a strike through their resolved issues to help to keep this page organised. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it was just a polite request. If you don't wish to cap comments, then that's up to you. I'd rather not have to restart nominations but if you insist, that's what'll have to happen. Other editors, as you will see looking at other FLCs, are happy to cap their comments rather than strike them, to help "organise" the page, and to not put others off trying to contribute. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought you meant to strike them. I do not know what you mean by cap them. I do not think that this page is too long and I do not think that I am putting anyone off who might want to add comments to this page. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: "To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits." Snowman (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sandman888 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A fine list. Must say I havn't read above text thoroughly, if there are any concerns (besides nationality of photos), please notify me.
  • I guess that it would be better that you check this review yourself than rely on notifications for feedback. Sometimes it is better to sign after each comment, because sometimes a line can become detached from one signature made after several lines. I think that currently, it is actually quite difficult to trace who to notify. Snowman (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cd the TOC be on the left somehow? I'm not that happy with the layout. Perhaps two rows of bird-names under each heading in the traditional TOC format cd do?
  • Nice use of pictures, but isn't there pictures for all birds?
  • It's supposed to just illustrate the article, it would be very crowded if all species had images. The available images might not be the correct subspecies of have features that are improbable in L&R, such as open sea, beaches or cliffs, or show nesting birds of species that don't breed in the UK. If there is anywhere specific an image might be good, let me know and I'll add if possible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-page comments of 15 June 2010 see: User talk:Jimfbleak#Birds of Leics/Rutland (this wikilink will change with user talk page archiving). Snowman (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively see this permalink under the Birds of Leics/Rutland section. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: fine lists, all comments addressed. Ucucha 05:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Comments—[reply]

  • ""BBRC" means that a full description of national rarities is required by the British Birds Rarities Committee. "LROS" indicates that a description of county rarities is required by the LROS Records Committee"—I think this means that when you see a bird marked with "BBRC", you have to report to the BBRC (and the same for the LROS committee), but it's not as clear as it should be.
  • rephrased and expanded to clarify (I hope)
  • Why are some of the common names used different from those used in the article?
  • The source used names like Cormorant and Coot because they are unambiguous in a L&R setting. I should have either stuck rigidly to the LROS list, or changed all to full versions, but ended up with a mix. All names should now be those of the article except where inappropriate (eg Goosander, since the article uses the US name)
  • You call Fulica atra the "Coot" in the list and "Common Coot" in the figure caption.
  • fixed, Eurasian Coot for both
  • "eruption" seems an odd word to use (under "Sandgrouse")
  • It's standard for species like this that come flooding out of their normal range in an unpredictable way
  • Why does only Lagopus lagopus have the subspecies indicated in the table?
  • removed
  • Does the navigation template belong there when it doesn't link to this article?
  • added to template (Cornwall is there)

Ucucha 18:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • thanks for pointing out the name problems, all fixed, thanks for support

Support nice list, well-illustrated. Good work Jimfbleak! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support meaning not opposing the use of images from outside Leics and Rutland. The list is well illustrated and all the images seem appropriate. Other reviewers probably have noticed any flaws, and this appears to meet the featured list criteria. —innotata 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposing it for showing birds from outside the locality. My point for discussion is that the page should say that not all of the birds are from the locality. In the absence of a specific reply to this issue, I have added an appropriate short notice to the list at the end of the introduction for clarity and transparency. Snowman (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2010 (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_list_candidates/List_of_birds_of_Leicestershire_and_Rutland/archive1&oldid=1046371564"