Talk:Snowy albatross

A problematic statement

"The Wandering Albatross is the whitest of the Wandering Albatross species complex..."

This essentially says that "X is a subset of X," which simply doesn't make any sense. I just tried to fix it by removing the second "Wandering," but my edit was reverted. So rather than get into a reversion war, let's figure out how to clean this up. Clearly, the two "X"s need to be differentiated from each other somehow. Any suggestions? Skybum (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It actually says that X1 is a subset of X", but to a reader that is unfamiliar with the concept of species complexes I understand that it might be confusing. The Wandering Albatross species complex includes the Tristan, Antipodean and Amsterdam Albatrosses as well. I'll think about how best to clarify that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed a bit of a neophyte here, but it's rather confusing if both X₁ and X are called exactly the same thing. I'll also ponder ways to address that. Another part of the problem is that the species complex page seems to directly contradict what this page says; if members of a species complex are morphologically indistinguishable from one another, then how can one species within the complex be larger and whiter than another? So perhaps that page needs a bit of revision as well. Skybum (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They are called a species complex because it was only recently established that they are separate species, and the species boundaries are hard to define, particularly using morphological characters. The amount of white can vary within a species and with age as well, so it isn't a fantastic diagnostic tool. But yeah, clarity would be helpful. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the reversion of a good faith edit, I shouldn't have done it that way. It's a tricky one; I know what it means, but it's difficult to express elegantly. Anyway, Sabine is the albatross king, so I'll take the easy way out and leave it to him Jimfbleak (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you accept the Robertson and Nunn analysis of the albatrosses,as modified by eg. Brooke 2004, which I do not,it is ridiculous to claim that gibsoni is a subspecies of exulans. All genetic analyses have show that Diomedea gibsoni is paired with Diomedea anitpodensis, and as the latter has page priority (in terms of the ICZN Code), gibsoni should be a subspecies of Diomdea anitpodensis. John Penhallurick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpenhall1946 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Size

Autochthony writes. Plainly, estimating size on the wing is difficult. However, many years ago, possibly 1982, I was sailing round the Cape (Suez was closed to VLCCs ), and we had a number of Wandering Albatross flying round the ship for some days, on and off. Most appeared - by eye - to be about the same size. One, however, largely white, was at least 25% bigger in wingspan [maybe 33%]. If the average is 3m, and the other birds averaged out at that 3m, the big one was 3.75 to 4 metres in span; to Imperial measurement folk like me, that is - near enough - 12'4" to 13'2". 12' 6" or so would do as an Imperial estimate. Autochthony wrote 2030z/22 October 2009. 86.154.31.21 (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

Stuffed specimen

For the first time this past weekend, I saw at very close range a stuffed specimen of what appeared to be a Wandering Albatross (with a pink bill and very whitish plumage) in my local natural science museum. It was absolutely huge and impressive, appearing surprisingly more massive to my eyes than stuffed condors in the adjacent room. I hope to be able to see the amazing albatross in the wild some day. Anyway, I am surprised that the albatross doesn't scale even more the cited weights. I thought it was very close in bulk and size to the Kori & Great Bustard specimens I saw in the American Museum of Natural History in NYC.

My evaluation of this article

As part of that course, I wrote ~300 word evaluations of various bird articles on wiki. My evaluation of this one is reproduced below, which is just my thoughts about possible improvements and things the article does well.

This Wikipedia article on the Wandering Albatross is decently large, but not nearly as complete as the article on the Great Tit. I am not sure if this is due to a lack of contributors or a lack of knowledge in general about the species. I suspect it's the former, since the article lead claims that it is "one of the best known and best studied species of bird in the world". The talk page is rather empty, too, and the history page includes a lot of reversions of vandalism. There is very little content, with only one or two sentences given over to each subheader. The writing style is inconsistent, and the "Relationship with humans" section in particular reads more like a literary analysis of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner than a true encyclopedia article. Some claims such as those concerning breeding and travelling tendencies lack references. The organization of the page could definitely use some work - there doesn't seem to be any sort of thoughtful organization behind what constitutes a header or subheader. For example, "Behavior” is listed as a subheader under Ecology, but "Breeding", "Feeding", and "Reproduction" are also subheaders, even though they should really all be listed under Behavior. The pictures are nice, but their captions could be more descriptive. A caption under a picture of an egg only reads, "Diomedea exulans - MHNT", which isn't very helpful when trying to determine what the picture is supposed to represent. There is a table of Breeding Population and Trends, which is quite nice and informative. Overall, though, the article definitely needs some cleaning up, and WikiProject Birds actually has the page listed as a top priority.

WolfyFTW (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Diomedea exulans in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Diomedea exulans in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 1, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans) in flight off the coast of the Tasman Peninsula. The wandering albatross is the largest of its genus, with an average wingspan ranging from 2.51 m to 3.5 m (8 ft 3 in – 11 ft 6 in). It feeds mostly on cephalopods, crustaceans, and small fish.Photograph: JJ Harrison

File:Diomedea exulans - SE Tasmania.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Diomedea exulans - SE Tasmania.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 27, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans) is a large seabird from the albatross family which is found in the seas around Antarctica. The first albatross to be described (though it was long grouped with Tristan and the Antipodean albatrosses), the wandering albatross is the largest member of its genus and one of the largest birds in the world.Photograph: JJ Harrison

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wandering albatross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221113624/http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop388.html to http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop388.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107111108/http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1004/1004_feature.html to http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1004/1004_feature.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snowy albatross/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Wolverine XI ^{(den • 🐾)} 09:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@AryKun: You do know you still have to review this, right? Wolverine XI ^{(den • 🐾)} 14:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll take me a couple of days. It's been 2 days since I created the page. AryKun (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• On first glance, I'm inclined to quick-fail this over concerns about the sourcing, comprehensiveness, and structure.
• It uses a lot of poor-quality or outdated refs. I usually would be okay with somewhat older references, but for a confusing complex that's been split recently, I definitely would prefer more recent sources. Many are too old to be of much functional use, it's been too long and too much research has occurred in the 30–40 years since they were published.
• Additionally, many older sources are used despite newer sources being present; see the 2008 BirdLife assessment being cited instead of the more recent and relevant 2018 one. So many sources are very poor-quality: the 1911 EB (!), a 1983 Guinness Book, a 2008 taxonomy from some project I've never heard of instead of the three annually updated avian checklists, a NZ government bird cam, and local newspapers.
• The comprehensiveness is also a concern; taxonomy is very lacking, distribution and habitat seems barebones, description lacks the appearance of juveniles, feeding is very short (I saw almost 10 studies on its diet on Scholar), parasites and predators are not mentioned (I saw some studies on Scholar), and conservation is too short considering even the IUCN Red List text summary covers more points than it.
• The structure's also poor. The population and trends table makes no sense; it's single year estimates from random locations over 15 years ago and has nothing to do with distribution. The Description section focuses 2 paragraphs on largest albatross on xx island and only one para on the actual appearance of the species. Taxonomy doesn't cover any of its systematic history or taxonomic relationships to other albatrosses.
• The selection of images is somewhat random; images are meant to complement the text and here they feel like they're just randomly stuck in.
• "10 December and 5 January" I was skimming through and saw this, which is immediately contradicted by BOW. I checked a couple more claims in the article afterwards and found many errors, which might be because of how old the references used are. Much of the article also doesn't seem to have been changed substantially since you started working on it, so I also can't AGF on the veracity of the claims.
• This article honestly requires a lot of work; I'll be quick failing it for now. AryKun (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed