Talk:Elfin woods warbler

(Redirected from Talk:Elfin-woods Warbler)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by SandyGeorgia in topic URFA
Featured articleElfin woods warbler is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 20, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 23, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Elfin-woods Warbler, an endemic bird of Puerto Rico first observed in 1968, is the last New World warbler to be discovered?
Current status: Featured article

Last or Most Recent?

edit

It says that this is the last one to be discovered, but we don't know that! Wouldn't "most recent" be more accurate? Bazza 16:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is it still the most recent (in 2009)? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

questions for author.

edit

First off, fantastic work. Sorry I missed the peer review. Anyways, a few questions.

  • However, as of 2005, it had only achieved vulnerable status. when I first read this I though it meant it had been endangered and had been downgraded to vulnerable.
  • Thankfully for now the species is safe, as the majority of its natural habitats are protected forests. A species that is vulnerable is by definition not safe. Perhaps it should be made clear that it is not in immidiate danger.
  • The section on changing conservation status of the warbler does not make it clear whether it is talking about the IUCN assesment or the USFWS assesment. Could you try and separate the two different assesments to make it clearer?
I have clarified the conservation status. Joelito (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anyways, I may have some more comments later, but I have to get back to what I was doing. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

suggestion

edit

However, as of 2005, it had only achieved vulnerable status. Introduced species such as rats and mongooses represent a threat to the Elfin-woods Warbler. Thankfully, for now, the species is not in immediate danger, as the majority of its natural habitats are protected forests.

This seems a bit awkward to me. How about: As of 2005, the warbler was still listed as vulnerable. The species is not in immediate danger, as the majority of its natural habitats are protected forests, but introduced rats and mongooses represent potential threats. Matthias5 03:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. Joelito (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Section order

edit

It really doesn't make much sense to stick a section on distributuion between two realted sections discussing the birds appearance and behaviour. If you've used cite php, which appears to be the case, moveing the section should not affect references in any way.--Peta 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I use cite.php but you should have been more careful since some references use the <ref name =""> format. Also I was roughly following the section order of Albatross, the most recent bird related feature article. Joelito (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wall Street Journal

edit

This article was mentioned in the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115756239753455284-A4hdSU1xZOC9Y9PFhJZV16jFlLM_20070911.html?mod=blogs

--Kalmia 10:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Update needed

edit

While correcting a dead link in the reference section, I see that population numbers for this species have been updated by BirdLife International. They're now estimating 1830 mature adults, which is nearly three times what they had estimated for the 2000 IUCN info. This should be updated; the IUCN justification also doesn't match what is shown on that source page (the BirdLife International species factsheet). MeegsC | Talk 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are some missing citations here. Is anyone able to brush up this article, so it can avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
The two places that needed cites, and one cite that needed replacing with a reliable source are done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

To sum up - we did some cleaning up in late 2012 as well. Like many esoteric articles, it is reasonably well-preserved and the nominator was pretty thorough at the time, so my impression is we're in keep territory. Happy for others to comment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

If there's anything else needed let me know and I will dig up the refs. Joelito (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've added a couple of sources to Further reading. Arendt et al. should be cited. The article cites two masters dissertations. I do not consider these to be reliable sources and in addition, they are not readily available either online or in major libraries and thus cannot be used to verify the information in the article. I suspect that the info is present in other sources. Aa77zz (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've been looking but most online sources reference those two thesis. Joelito (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Is the lead too short? DrKay (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

URFA

edit

@Jimfbleak and MeegsC: since User:Joelr31 is no longer editing, might you see if this FA is satisfactory (good enough) for WP:URFA/2020? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi SandyGeorgia: Happy to take a look. Will add it to this week's list of things to do! MeegsC (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks so much, MeegsC. See the instructions at WP:URFA/2020 ... we are not looking for perfection, just enough to know if a FAR can be avoided. If you find it good enough, you can enter a "Satisfactory" comment at the URFA page. If you find significant work is needed, and a FAR might be indicated, you can add a list here, and put that diff at the URFA page. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
SandyGeorgia: Can you please take a look at my list below and see if you think it's okay to keep this out of FA review for the time being? I don't think it would take too much to bring it up to snuff, but if you think otherwise, I'll list it. MeegsC (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
No need to list it at URFA yet, as long as we remember to keep an eye on it. Joelito has been gone for a long time, so I don’t know that he will work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Updates needed

edit

To keep this one at FA level, I think it needs a little work. Here are the things I'd suggest:

  • The lede is insufficient. It's supposed to summarise the article, and at present it doesn't do that.
  • In several places in the "Discovery and taxonomy" section, it's unclear which "Kepler" we're talking about.
fixed I think. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • It could use a good copyedit to clean up some clunky language.
  • Various dated things (i.e. "as of 2017", population estimates, etc.) need to be checked and, if necessary, updated.
  • Information from the items in the "further reading" references should be tied into the article, if appropriate.
  • I can see articles on JSTOR and SORA that mention the warbler which aren't yet included in the references. We should have a look to see if they can add anything of value.

I don't think it would take too long to make these updates and improvements, which should keep it from having to go through a FA review. MeegsC (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

MeegsC I have lost track of where this stands; are you finished working on it? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
SandyGeorgia, sorry RL got crazy about the middle of the month. I've done about half of the updates, and should have time to finish up this week. MeegsC (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Glad to hear it, and thanks for the work! Please ping me when I should revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply