Have to say, I'm having trouble figuring out from the legend which of the map colours is meant to be which - for example, which of the greens is pale and which is dark?
that was tricky....I will see what I can do - i.e. make the range map of one subspecies paler and eliminate the political boundaries. ok I made the pale green more unambiguously paler and removed the political colours, leaving all land not inhabited by this bird white.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs)
19:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
[Addendum: How do you pronounce "boobook", this is an unfamiliar word to me, at least and I can think of at least three plausible pronunciations: /bubuk/, /bubʊk/, or /boʊboʊk/. And as a general note, maybe it isn't standard for ornithologists but all of these pronunciation spellings of the calls aren't super clear. For "mopoke", e.g., I could imagine it trying to represent a call like /moʊpoʊkeɪ/ or /mɑpoʊk/, but as the source also has "morepork", which presumably reflects a non-rhotic pronunciation, I guess it's something like /moʊpoʊk/. It might be helpful if prounciations of the English representations of the calls can be added in with reliable sources 03:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC).]
"this is now regarded as a synonym." The word "now" is unhelpful (
MOS:CURRENT) -- say who synonymized it and when, or use the
Template:As of to note it was in 2017 when you checked whichever database.
S. maculatus all of a sudden gets mentioned like the reader should be familiar with it. I'm presuming this is some other species than than another synonym (like S. marmoratus), so wikilink?
And so your list of synonyms doesn't reflect all combinations which are synonymous, then, since you only have A. marmorata, not S. marmoratus? Which is standard?
More of "the native name", okay maybe we don't know which language but do we know where Dawes or Caley asked for the indiginous name? Like what you do later for Gould.
Do you have any secondary sources that talk about Wink et al.'s and Gwee et al.'s studies? How were they received by others?
Gwee's is really recent, but will likely see the addition and subtraction of subspecies. Winks helped confirm the
split accepted by the IOC world birdlist (consensus bird taxonomy worldwide), though they cite Schodde there...Cas Liber (
talk·contribs)
20:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
"A 2017 study by Singapore-based biologist Chyi Yin Gwee and colleagues [...], In a 2017 paper, Gwee and colleagues" -- this makes it seem like they're not the same paper.
[Addendum: caption should be capitalized, and I personally think it should give credit to the illustrator, viz.,
John Gerrard Keulemans 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
"Eleven subspecies are recognised by the IOC"
Template:As of? This is esp important in case they change due to Gwee et al's recommendations. It also might be better to have more of an introduction here, say which subspecies have been suggested to be reclassified by Gwee et al., for instance.
have added version and date of publication. Am coy about speculating future additions and subtractions (which are almost inevitable) - they are listed in text anywayCas Liber (
talk·contribs)
13:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Casliber: like I said I don't consider myself an expert in FA bird articles; I just wanted to raise the issue and see if excluding them was made for a reason. Maybe if not for the subspecies perhaps at least for the species as a whole?
Umimmak (
talk)
05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I have added it for the species as a whole and ones (such as lurida and ocellata) where they don't come from an island (eg. The type specimen for Kangaroo Island is just listed as "Kangaroo Island" in the source...which makes it repetitive and not really informativeCas Liber (
talk·contribs)
11:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"It is sometimes included in the nominate subspecies." -- are König et al. claiming this synonymy or merely reporting others have?
" it is known to the local people as" again who are they? The peoples local to which area? Aboriginal Australians are not a homogenous group.
here it refers to the indigenous people of Rote Island. have changed "local" to "indigenous" - should I add "of Rote Island" here too? worried it might be a bit repetitive...Cas Liber (
talk·contribs)
02:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I still think it's a bit unclear...the source makes it seem like these are the names in two different languages, but right now the article reads as if they're two terms of a single language instead.
Umimmak (
talk)
04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I was more getting at how the source says one word was used by the people in one part of Rote Island and the other by the people in another part, i.e., they're presumably different languages, not just synonyms of the same language. Even changing people to "peoples" might be clearer.
Umimmak (
talk)
05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm just assuming throughout that in the absence of providing a different basionym that these subspecies were all described explicitly as a subspecies of N. boobook.
"different to subspecies boobok" Is this standard in Australian English? "Different to" is often proscribed in formal American English, although I think it might be acceptable in British English I just saw this in academic Australian English so you're good with "different to" I guess 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"The bill is black with a pale blue-grey base and cere" It's a bit weird to all of a sudden discuss cere in the midst of several sentences discussing color, especially since this is likely to be an unfamiliar term.
It's a shame there's apparently(?) no free audio. I wonder if it might be useful to bring up the sound file in external links within an "external media" template
"the second note generally lower than the first" clarify lower in pitch, not volume
"which becomes quite smelly" The word "smelly" strikes me as being entirely too informal for an encyclopedia
hmm, I don't but happy to change to another simple word - "malodorous" strikes me as too long, "foul-smelling"..I guess "stinky" is out too then...what would you suggest?Cas Liber (
talk·contribs)
00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Again, just raising a point and making sure you've thought about your word choice; if you think "smelly" is fine, then perhaps it is I who has divergent views.
Umimmak (
talk)
05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"and raptors such as the brown goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus), [..], and probably powerful owl seize young birds." I'm confused, is "probably powerful owl" a common name for a species of owl?
This is just my own personal preference, but I'd prefer to see a more consistent use of DOIs and links to the publisher's versions, e.g.,
doi:
10.1111/j.1469-7998.1846.tb00135.x for Gould 1846
I'm confused why you list Giacon's first name as "Gianbattista (John)"; he listed his name on the chapter as "John Giacon"
doi:
10.1515/9781614510581.251 [moved 03:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
I'm not sure I see the benefit to wikilinking in references in general -- why would the reader want to know more about the journal Zoologische Verhandelingen?
[Addendum: You just cite Higgins 1999 as if he's the author of the entire book, but he's only the senior editor. You seem to only be citing from one chapter which has its own title, author, and pages, within this book, and these should be specified in the reference.
Umimmak (
talk)
03:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
[Addenda: why don't you have the full citation for "Is the Timor southern boobook a separate species?" You should have the date (2010), volume (28), issue (1), page (10), journal (Boobook) at the minimum. 03:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC) ]
it was for many years considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand until 1999—perhaps keep temporal elements together as it was for many years prior to 1999 considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand
"Described by John Latham in 1801, it was for generally considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand until 1999." Something wrong here.
Does the female start incubating when the clutch is complete - or does she start when the first egg is laid? In other words - do the eggs all hatch at the same time (synchronously)? If not, presumably the last born does not survive when food is scarce.
"Some sites are reused for up to 20 years, especially if broods have been successfully raised in them before." I find this sentence confusing. To me it suggests that an individual pair could use a site for up to 20 years - but southern boobooks do not live that long.
Nice read, I've made some tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. Not sure if the phrase "Caves or ledges are alternative roosting sites if there are no trees available." is fully compatible with the idea of them being restricted to habitats where there are trees. But anyway the prose is of FA standard ϢereSpielChequers23:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support - The article looked good when I GA passed it, and of course looks even better now with additional fixes. I would give dates for the artworks, though.
FunkMonk (
talk)
09:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply