Talk:Northern flicker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Northern Flicker)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Birds (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Northern flicker is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Caribbean / Cayman Islands / Saint Pierre & Miquelon (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Cayman Islands work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Saint Pierre and Miquelon work group.
 

Assessment[edit]

I definetly wouldn't give it more than a Start-Class. it has good information, but it needs to be lengthened and it has a lot of good stuff in the introduction that needs to be put elsewhere. But this has a lot of interesting stuff in it. - Cynops 14:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved some information around and re-formatted section headers to bring them in line with some of the featured articles in WikiProject Birds. We still need range information in the new Taxonomy section. There seemed to be some info in the article that is interesting but borderline trivia. I don't see many other articles that have sections explaining what the scientific names mean for example. I moved this info to the taxonomy section as it was interesting and that seemed the most appropriate place. The info on the Alabama Yellowhammers is also interesting but I have this feeling it would be more appropriate on a page about the Alabama yellowhammers and then just linked off this page. At any rate, the article could also use a section titled "Relationship with humans" that includes conservation status. Conceivably, the yellowhammer information could go in that section. I didn't add much of any new info but the sections are set up to be filled in now and it should be more obvious where the holes are. Kirkmona (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

New pics and range map[edit]

I think the new pics are pretty good, but the range map could be labeled (I think the colors are supposed to be different subspecies but I'm not sure). I also don't really like having the photo gallery at the end is a really good idea. Cynops 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

With the range map I followed the color guidelines specified in WikiProject: Birds, so basically yellow is summer, blue is winter, and green is year-round. When I first started making those I tried putting a legend on each range map to specify what the colors mean, but the legend was too small to read in the thumbnail, and too big on the expanded version of the image. So I settled for putting the info on the map's description page, which isn't a perfect solution but is the best I've come up with so far.
As far as the photos go, the last version of the page had 4 images, but none of them showed what I'd consider to be the bird's most important identifying physical characteristics - yellow or red wing bars, and the red bar on the back of the head. I think people are using the bird articles on Wikipedia the way we once would have used a paperbound Field Guide - first to identify a bird they saw, and then to learn a little more about it. So I think it's important to have a good range map and good quality images that can help with identification.
I threw the photo gallery in there because I thought each of those images were relevant to the article, and I wasn't comfortable tossing them, but I didn't think they needed to be taking up a bunch of page space. A gallery makes them easily accessible without really breaking the flow of the article.
But those are just my thoughts on the subject. I'm still pretty new at this, so if someone would prefer it done another way it wouldn't bother me at all. 'Card 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy[edit]

I don't have time to go through it all right now but this looks like a good reference for DNA analysis of yellow-shafted, red-shafted and gilded flickers. If someone has time to read though it before I do please feel free to add any good information to the taxonomy section. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/8/3/327.pdf Kirkmona (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

IUCN red list has 'Colaptes cafer' and 'Colaptes Mexicanoides' as separate species Green daemon (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

identical footnotes and references sections calling reflist[edit]

Why are the Footnotes and References sections identical, with each calling the {{reflist}} template? Are both needed? Just passing through the article, and thought I would mention! --papageno (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch. I removed one of them. Kirkmona (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lifespan[edit]

Seems to me that a lifespan isn't how long the oldest recorded lived, but should be a general average amount of time they live. Anyone care to change that? --216.106.104.80 (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)