Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glossary of bird terms/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Glossary of bird terms edit

Glossary of bird terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a big one. But if this passes you will have been a reviewer for the first ever featured glossary. I hope any reviewer enjoys the read. Take it on if want to learn what a cloacal kiss is and the related answer to the age old question: "do birds have penises?"; that pigeons blink but most other birds don't; that a bird's rump can be called a pope's nose and lots of other information you will be able to use every day in casual conversation and to lord over your bird-ignorant friends. I can't even estimate the time I have into this but well north of a hundred hours. Writing it – doing the research to do so – was like completing a college major. I wrote it with featured status in mind and was endeavoring for perfect sourcing for everything. There's a great deal of integration and cross-referencing between definitions. By the very nature of a glossary, comprehensiveness has to be viewed a bit differently than for a "regular" list article. It is impossible to cover every potential term because there are literally thousands. That being said, I've attempted to cover everything that should be covered, and I've included definitions for all the terms people suggested or thought should be included when discussed at Wikiproject:Birds. The criteria are in the lead and expanded by discussion at the talk page. As to the lead, it may be seen as a bit short. I have brainstormed a bit to try to think of what else I could include there (I also asked the question on the talk page) but have rejected everything I thought of as really asides. It's a glossary. The terms and their definitions are the content and the normal function of a lead to provide a canonical summary is a mismatch. But if anyone has a suggestion I'm all ears. All of the images are from the Commons (so no fair use review is needed).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pbsouthwood edit

Lead edit

characterized by feathers and the ability to fly, but not all can fly. To me, "characterized by" suggests that it is a universal. Even if I am wrong, this impression may be shared by many. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Peter. Does this edit adequately address the issue?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well enough for me, though I have added a comma to reduce a possible ambiguity, and corrected spelling • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead serves an acceptable and appropriate alternative function for a glossary. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tables of content edit

The ToC after the lead has no numbers, which is appropriate, as there are no number entries, but all the other ToCs have a number section. Is it reasonably practicable to standardise this?• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed this. All fixed and neater because of it. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B edit

Beak: Would "snout" not be a better analogy than "nose"? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. A snout is a wholesale elongation of the bone structure of the face itself, where both beaks and noses are autonomous projections from the surface of the face. To think of it in the reverse, a big human's nose is often called [analogized to] a beak; it is rarely if ever called a snout because it's just not a neat fit with one, grossly anatomically speaking).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, no nose includes a lower jaw, which is as far as I can see, a part of a beak. Or am I missing something? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course we're not talking apples to apples. But snout does not work and would sound very odd, and nose doesn't, not only for the much closer anatomical fit (again grossly anatomically speaking) but because of the language use I also mentioned, that we often analogize this in the reverse (for human noses).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C edit
Clutch: Awkward first sentence. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and restated. I think all that was needed was removal of the trailing "in a nest", which is quite tacit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crissum: The feathered area between the vent and the tail a/k/a the collective name for the undertail coverts. seems a bit redundant • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of the sentence is topography location information. The second part if the sentence is the type and name of the feathers found on that identified external part of the body, which only an ornithologist or a preternaturally observant reader with eidetic memory from reading another entry would know solely by reading the first part of the entry. In other words, I don't think there's any redundancy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"also known as the undertail coverts". or
"the collective name for the undertail coverts", are both clear and read well. Both refer unambiguously to the undertail coverts.
"also known as the collective name for the undertail coverts" diverts attention from the feathers to the name. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we were talking past each other. Breaking it into two sentences with "also" is fine, and done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
cryptic plumage: such as male birds in colourful nuptial plumage for sexual display, making them stand out as much as possible. Is this what the source actually states? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Access to this part of the book is now restricted. I have swapped it out for a different source and tweaked it to match this source's focus on such plumage making the bird quite conspicuous rather than "as much as possible".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As much as possible is somewhat teleological. Better avoided. Current wording is much better. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, this drives me to distraction when I watch many nature documentaries.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D edit
diastataxis: The explanation is duplicated under "secondaries", but the bit about "twisting of the feather papillae during embryonic development" does not clarify it for me in either case. Possibly I am lacking in some essential background knowledge, but I would guess this will be the case for a large proportion of readers. Is it possible to briefly explain how the putative twisting could have this effect? Alternatively, does that part of the text actually explain anything to anyone? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see edits and edit summaries here and here--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
dietary classification terms (-vores): Is food storage a feeding tactic or strategy? I am unsure, so leave it as a question in case someone has the answer.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was not able to find any distinction in use, and found multiple interchangeable uses (as was my use). They are synonyms (as are broadly the plain words tactic and strategy). See e.g. here (the headline might make you think two things are going to be defined, but no, the headline is used to define the same thing by both words). Here they are being used interchangeably; so too here (PDF), in an article on birds titled "resource use strategies of wading birds", where both are used multiple times without distinction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strategy, as I understand it, is the bigger picture, while tactics are more detailed, localised, and immediate. As in strategy being the plans for a war, and tactics the plans for a battle. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it has such nuance when in the context of war tactics/war strategies, but I don’t think there’s any ambiguity in this biological context, where my research indicates interchangeable use is correct, and not uncommon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E edit
egg: Same point about distribution of references. Currently all at the end. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
F edit
filoplume: description would be greatly improved by an image if possible. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I remember looking for one, and rejecting all (free ones) I found as rather useless, but I'll look again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've uploaded and added: to the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
flange: The explanation unfortunately leaves me without a mental picture. An actual picture would be ideal, failing which, a bit more explanation. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The interlocking of feathers diagram associated with the entry for barbules should help (see figures 3 and 6). I've simply referred to it in a parenthetical for the flange entry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what is referred to as "folded edge" in fig. 3? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I have tweaked the parenthetical to clarify this, here.—Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
flanks: The explanation contradicts what I understand as flanks in other animals, being the posterior part of the sides, and not of the underparts.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I remember coming across a source that actually talked about the idiosyncratic use of "flank" in birds as compared with other animals. I'll see if I can locate and cite (maybe as a parenthetical).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See Glossary of bird terms#cite note-200--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G edit
gular region: The definition refers to :"the angles of the jaw" which are undefined. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I think it's fairly straightforward. The angles of the jaw are where the back of the jaw protrudes under the skin (on you that would be just below and sightly forward of your earlobes). On the other, despite this, I used a quote because when I'm not 100% certain, I can't paraphrase properly. Plenty of anatomy and medical books use the term, but none I found define it; all seem to assume it's obvious and tacit. I have looked and not found any source defining it further.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you add it without sourcing? Maybe do, in parentheses, the definition you just gave? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be original research? I know, we don't need to cite the sky is blue, but here I would be making an educated guess rather than observing the sky's color. Maybe I can post to the reference desk to see if some doctor can find a definition somewhere. It doesn't necessarily need to be bird related. It's an expression that would seemingly be true of any creature with a jaw.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Angle of the mandible linked to phrase.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
L edit
lores: For consistency should this not be singular? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did this one earlier. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyBugz: Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
M edit
migration: Multiple references clustered at the end. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyBugz: Excellent entry. I made a structural change for clarity and flow that removed some repetition, without any change to the information content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
N edit
nail: Would be improved by an image if available. There should be something suitable in one of these images at Commons which can be cropped for the purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I've cropped and used this image for the definition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P edit
pileum: Why the specific reference to the Manual of Ornithology? is the term not used elsewhere? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is in-text attribution for a direct quote. See also the edit summary that accompanied it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
pin feather: Explanation of the growth process is somewhat confusing. I don't follow the bit about lengthening helically. Is there some helical structure on a mature feather that I haven't noticed, or does it straighten out later or what? What happens to the growth plates? The barb plate is mentioned without explanation of origin. I guess that this is the central structure of a barb, and that there are lots of them - 1 per barb, and that each one differentiates into hooklets and cilia, but then where is the rest of the barb? What are the marginal and axial plates? where did they come from? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
prebasic moult: Description is OK until postjuvenal moult is mentioned, then I get confused. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While you have to understand a number of concepts to understand the definition, I've read it a number of times, and I think it's rather clear. Can you read it again, and see whether you can describe further what you find confusing? In Humphrey-Parkes the moults after the breeding season have just one name, numbered 1, 2, 3... In traditional, the first subsequent moult has a particular name, and all subsequent to that one have another name, numbered 1, 2, 3...--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
precocial: " but still able to move" implies that others are not able to move? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an artifact of a dispute over the language to use in the definition (on the talk page), and it now has a Frankenstein's monster compromise to it. I will tweak.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the altricial and precocial definitions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
primaries: "friction barbules", and "lobular barbicels" are not defined or explained anywhere. The glossary seems a good place to do this. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See entry for friction barbules. ("Lobular barbicels" is not a stand-alone term but just a description for lobe-shaped barbicels that friction barbules host.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
pterylae: Singular: pterlya. Is this a typo? I would expect pteryla following standard Latin. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reversing something here? An "a" ending for the singular and an "ae" for the plural is standard Latin. Alga/algae, antenna/antennae, etc., and I know that you already know this because your use below shows you do—so yes, the singular of pterylae is pteryla, as this definition states. See further here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I was asking. I think pterlya (sic) is a typo of pteryla. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
pterylosis: Spelling: "pterylya and apterylae". Is this also a typo? also appears to be suggesting singular pteryla(?) and plural apterylae, but the associated image seems to show more than one of each. Consider alternative "pterylae and apterylae". • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a typo. I've added the "e".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was the extra "y" that bothered me. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
S edit
secondaries: Quill knobs is not adequately explained by the link used. If there is no better link for the term it may be appropriate to define it in the glossary. It may not be necessary to do more than add an anchor and a note that it is defined here in one of the other definitions already in the glossary. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I grok you here. If all you mean is that links should serve the function of directing readers to a page that has more information (or why else link), and since you're right that the pennaceous feather article, where the links redirects, says little more about them, I agree and have simply removed the link. But you also imply that the term is not adequately explained in this entry for secondaries. Since it already says "...the ligaments that bind secondaries to the bone connect to small, rounded projections that are called quill knobs", I think you must think there's something more to them than that. AFAIK there isn't—that is an adequate definition for quill knobs, à la: "bumps on wing bones where feathers anchor" (source).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
V edit
vaned feather: They include the pennaceous feathers a/k/a contour feathers, and the flight feathers. If the main article on pennaceous feather is correct then flight feathers are pennaceous feathers, so it should read: "They include the pennaceous feathers a/k/a contour feathers, which include the flight feathers". • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. And actually it flags a deeper problem with the definition in that all pennaceous feathers are vaned feather and only pennaceous feathers are vaned feathers, but they are not used as direct synonym. "Vaned feathers" describes a specific property of pennaceous feathers. I have tweaked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it comes down to the etymology of pennaceous. This has a clear definition, which implies that vanes are what makes a feather pennaceous. This has a nice diagram showing not only the pennaceous and plumulaceous parts of a feather, but also the mechanism by which the hooked barbules interlock with the adjacent grooved barbules to support the vane. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
W edit
wing coverts: It is not clear what "inner" and "outer" are relative to in this definition. It is suggested that bow coverts will be defined, but they are not. Why are they in single square brackets? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 00:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bow coverts are another name for lesser coverts. Thus, "[bow coverts]" was intended to indicate this for what it immediately proceeded, and I thought it would make it more clear to use brackets given the multiple uses of parentheses already in the preceding text (as an extension of the common convention to use brackets for nesting a parenthetical within another that already makes use of parentheses [like this]). Obviously it did not make it more clear for you. I have tweaked. As to inner wing and outer wing, as you can see from those links' existence, I have added a definition in the glossary for them (in a single entry), and have linked each of their uses in the definition for wing coverts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
wings: i) Each wing has a central vane to hit the wind, is a strange way to express it. Both "vane" and "hit the wind" do not feel like natural use of descriptive English for this application. So much so that I am at a loss to suggest an improvement. I am familiar with basic aerodynamics, but do not understand what this is supposed to communicate.
ii)soaring wings with deep slots—favoured by larger species of inland birds - "favoured" is a bit teleological. Can we find something that suggests that it is an adaptational advantage for the flight patterns which suit these birds' ways of life?
iii) by "capturing" the energy in air flowing from the lower to upper wing surface at the tips, does not actually explain anything, and could be left out without reducing real information value. If I remember correctly, wingtip vortices are the mechanism of induced drag, so reduce the induced drag and wingtip vortices might be better expressed as "reduce the induced drag of (or caused by) wingtip vortices". • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and done. All of them were easily removed with no loss of meaning I could see, which tells you they were fluff. I've simply replaced "favoured with "common in".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
It seems to be getting there. No rush, but let me know when you are done with this round. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a problem with the use of "vane" for the skeletal structure of a wing. The bones do not comprise a vane by any definition I have been able to find. A vane is a relatively thin, flat or smoothly curved structure, usually stiff enough to hold a working shape under normal load. The whole wing, or the feathers in place on the wing, could be described as a vane, but the bones support the vane, without the feathers there is no vane. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to “axis”, which better captures the actual structure of the bones, rather than the surface they support, and avoids any conflation with the use of vanes in the ornithology context to refer to the vaxillum.—Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: I believe I've addressed everything above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Will look at it tomorrow. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of FL criteria

  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
    2. Complies.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
    3. Complies.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
    • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
      • I think it is sufficient.
    • (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
      • As far as I can tell, complies.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
    5. Complies.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
    7. Complies.

Support. Looks good to me. I am sure I have missed something but it gets my support. I have considered mainly whether the information provided makes sense to a person with reasonable biology background, but no specialised knowledge of birds. Language seems grammatical, correctly spelled, unambiguous, appropriate and logical. The references I checked were good and no copyright issues noticed, but I only checked those that are on-line, and possibly not all of them. Images appropriate and useful, but did not check for copyright issues other than that they seem to be appropriately licensed on Commons. I cannot speak for completeness, but have no objections. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley edit

I'm probably going to give many comments, but here goes.

  • The last part of cloaca should be sourced. Even if it is sourced somewhere else, nobody will take the time to search for it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking RileyBugz. Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No can do. Every one of those cites verifies separate facts in the paragraph and removing any one would make part of the information unverified.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do all four sources verify parts of the last sentence? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I may read into the question, it appears a prelude to asking whether I could place the sources next to each part they verify: yes I could (no they are not all needed for the last sentence), but if memory serves, the reason I did this was because it was quite a blend and I would actually need to cite a few of the four multiple times if I took that path. In other words, were I to do so, the four cites would become six footnotes or more in the paragraph. I believe it is fairly standard (even for featured content) to cite at the end of a paragraph where there is no direct quote or controversial material that is likely to be challenged.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be much better if it were a blend. It allows readers (and editors, for that matter) to easily find, in a reliable source, what they want to know. It makes it much more annoying when you have to look through four sources. Also, for my featured content, you rarely see one citation next to another. And in all of the featured content that I have reviewed, everything is sourced in the "blended" way. Overall, the blended way is much better and the norm, at least as I see it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyBugz: I am a strong proponent of enforcing verifiability (with sharpened fangs, not in the milquetoast manner we have and currently allow, which is one of the chief reasons we now face a near bottomless pit of unsourced content), so, while there are multiple FACs where this has been discussed and found to be fine, anything that calls for more transparent verifiability goes with the grain for me and feels hypocritical for me to push back on. I will fold the cites into the paragraph (though probably not today).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You understand my intention correctly. I am not fanatical about this, but I do think it is better over the long term to be as specific as reasonably practicable. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a typo. Fixing it now, thanks for noticing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from N Oneemuss edit

Wow, this must have been a huge endeavour. Still, I can see how useful this could be for bird articles, and this list looks excellent on first glance, so well done for the great work. I've made a few small edits (mostly just things like punctuation); I have one question, and will have a closer look at this soon.

  • In the Contents (not the one at the top, but the rest), why are J and Y clicakble even though there are no entries for it? This is inconsistent with X, which is not clicakble. Also, the first Contents section has links to the Footnotes and Bibliography, whereas the others don't. Would it be possible to just use the version of the Contents found at the top of the page throughout the article (though the link to the top of the page should definitely be retained)? N Oneemuss (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking N Oneemuss and for the copyedit. This was my lack of familiarity with this less common TOC scheme. I didn't want to use the same one from the lead because it contains that extra line at the top, and doesn't have a link to "Top", However, I studied the template documentation and figured out how to do it. A decided improvement. Thanks for the suggestion!-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from MeegsC edit

Support. I've been making suggestions to this one for a while now, all of which have been included. It's got just about everything I can think of now! An enormous effort, resulting in a very useful glossary; this should certainly prove useful to anyone reading our various bird articles (and wondering where the mantle, or lores, or supercilium are, for example). Clearly organized, with links to the main articles that provide more in-depth information. Judicious use of images. MeegsC (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by PresN edit

Alright, if Pbsouthwood can parse through this whole list and still pick out problems, then I can parse through the 400+ references...

  • Fixed a few minor errors
  • Also converted all ISBN10s to ISBN13s
  • Also fixed a bunch of instances where you used the Citation template instead of your more commonly-used Cite X template
  • ref 127 ("Mysteries of pigeon milk explained") isn't filled out, and also has the wrong date style (everywhere else is is D-M-Y)
  • Well, not everywhere- ones useing M-D-Y: 2, 176, 216, 242, 243, 270, 280, 288, 289, 329, 396, 403. If you wanted M-D-Y, then... there's a bunch of others that are in that format instead
  • And 345, 346 have yyyy-mm-dd
  • I think in ref 184 (Turkeys: Behavior, Management and Well-Being) you're mis-citing it; it's throwing an error about invalid language code (you need a script to see the error). I believe it's because you're using the "|in" parameter, though I may be wrong- regardless, you're citing the work as if "Turkeys: Behavior, Management and Well-Being" was the book title, but unless I'm mistaken that's actually the chapter title, and the book title is "The Encyclopaedia of Animal Science". An easy switch- move the book title to "|title", and the chapter title to "|chapter".
  • ref 404 you just cite the whole book, no page number. Can you add one? --PresN 02:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey PresN. Thanks for looking! I have addressed everything above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks good! Lets get this massive list promoted! --PresN 20:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Glossary_of_bird_terms/archive1&oldid=1049521722"