Talk:White-rumped swallow

Feedback

The Taxonomy section needs more detail, why was it considered a subspecies and then a species again. I will try to ferret around for this. Also, be wary of too many sentences starting with "It..." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks! I'm going to let somebody else read the articles relating to taxonomy, the articles are way above my reading level (I'm still in school, mind you...). I will try to correct the problem of too many sentences starting with "it." Again, thanks for the feedback! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There are some very interesting images on Commons that could be used:[1] For example, using an abandoned nest of another species[2], and feeding juveniles in flight:[3] This image also seems clearer than the one currently under description:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Thanks! I put in the one with juveniles being fed and the one where it is using the nest of another species. I think I will keep the one in the description section though because I want a picture showing its front/underparts. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: After you add the stuff about its relation to the Chilean swallow, I am going to submit it to WP:GAN. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: I cleaned up the taxonomy section a bit. I will add some info on its name, and then I will put it to WP:GAN. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

IUCN

The intro says: It is classified as a least-concern species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).. This uses too much space about the source, to be in the intro. The source/evaluator is not important at all. It is not information about the bird. It is only information about the information about the bird. Peripheral details like that should not be in the intro. The intro is to be short. Here that peripheral appears twice. I have seen the argument that the abbreviation needs to be introduced so that it can be used later. In this case that function does not work. The distance is too long between the occurrences. I have gone through all the FA and GA bird articles. Many do not mention IUCN. Many use the full name and many use only the acronym. Many used both. That is too extreme. I changed them.--Ettrig (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

First off, you forgot the fact that IUCN appears in the infobox, meaning that there is something using the abbreviation that is close in terms of distance. Also, there is a guideline that directly contradicts your edit; MOS:ACRO. If you want to change that guideline, then put up an RfC about it, and if it succeeds, then change it. Also, the evaluator is very important as different evaluators might have different criteria. So, I don't think that your argument has merit. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)