Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Peer review

WikiProject Birds/Peer review is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Fauna of Scotland

I note that the peer review request dated 12th February 2007 has been archived without comment. I understand that we are busy and the subject may be of slender interest to most. Nonetheless it would be helpful if someone could take a moment to answer the following mini-questionnaire by placing 'Y' or 'N' next to one or more of the statements. This is not a singular experience and I'd like to avoid wasting everyone's time in future by either not pestering Projects, or by making the request more enticing.

I/we did not comments on this article as it was:

Not relevant to WikiProject Birds.

Too specialised a subject and outside of my/our expertise.

So brilliant I/we could not think of anything to say.

So awful I/we did not want to take the time to try to make sense of it.

Too long and I/we are too busy.

I/we made some edits to the article and forgot/did not think it was necessary to comment here.

I/we are Simpson's fans and did not want to have to deal with a potentially grumpy Groundskeeper Willie type.

Other (pls specify).

Yours in anticipation. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do

Hi Ben: I've never peer reviewed an article before (I have an eye on this page because I'm waiting for a few of my own to be looked at) but I'll try to have a look at yours in the next few days. I'm currently on a working trip to Australia and don't have loads of time to work on-line (and won't be in a place with internet capabilities for much longer) but I'll do what I can! MeegsC | Talk 11:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thank you. The main thing I am concerned about is that it does not say anything fundamentally flawed so far as the avian species are concerned. Any feedback welcome. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]