Talk:White stork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:White Stork)
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article White stork 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 23, 2012.
WikiProject Birds (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon White stork 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Picture[edit]

I have taken a "real picture" of the White Stork.

Can be seen on the danish wiki http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hvid_stork

BrianHansen 17:06 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you Brian, it's always better to have photos, jimfbleak 07:45 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

References[edit]

The page could really use some references. Especially the claim "Approximately 13,000 White Stork pairs bred in Lithuania, the fifth largest population and highest known density of this species in the world." needs a verifiable source. DLX 21:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

White Stork in The Netherlands[edit]

The data of number of breeding storks in The Netherlands is outdated, according to the Dutch Centre of Field Ornithology (www.sovon.nl) there are roughly 350 breeding pairs. 145.97.215.13 (talk)

Can you find an appropriate reference? Only one I could find quickly was 273 breeding pairs in 1998 [1]. If you have appropriate source, please update article and add link to the source as well. DLX 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't give a reference but having just seen more storks in a single field than wikipedia says are in the whole of nl, I can certainly say that the cirrenb figure is wrong and needs removing if noone can improve on it.--94.157.243.176 (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

White storks in Burgenland, Austria[edit]

Neusiedlersee (New Settlers Lake) in Burgenland, Austria has a sizable white stork community. In fact many of the cities surrounding this lake RELY on the nesting storks for tourism. It would be nice to see Austria included as one of the european countries that 'hosts' the migrating and nesting storks. Sadly I am just a visitor to the region at the moment, so I cannot provide numbers or cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belindalibrarian (talkcontribs) 10:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

White Stork is the collaboration for December 2010[edit]

Nominated November 30 2010;

  1. Support: -Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Maias (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  4. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Very high visibility bird (responsible for bringing babies in much of Europe!), with considerable published research and article in rather poor shape. Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
And I want to add, the baby-stork story has more truth to it then people think, not that they bring babies, but that storks are generally more common in areas that also carry larger families. This is because of a correlation between the fertility of the ground that makes both higher stock populations and bigger families possible. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead pic[edit]

File:Ciconia_ciconia_(aka).jpg
Should we replace the current taxobox pic (which is an immature bird, as the dusky tip on the bill and duller legs indicate) with a picture of an adult? Or is that not important? There's a pretty good pic of an adult (see right), but it's a captive bird with the requisite band. MeegsC | Talk 15:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The new infobox image is a clear image of a zoo bird. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox legend[edit]

In the infobox, why is 'migration routes' larger than the other items in the legend? —focus 17:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know, not sure how to fix either colour

Images and refs[edit]

  • I've checked the licensing of all the images and tweaked the captions where necessary
  • I've had a couple of runs through the refs, added one for arrow-stork, but taken two dead links out and replaced with cite tags. I've tidied up the refs to be of consistent style (no full stop after initials, abstracts linked only from doi/pmid, one subscription only tag added etc) The journals aren't all spelt out in full
  • Not sure that the Ukrainian and Polish refs in last section bear close scrutiny

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Some refs about Stork in Culture[edit]

Hi, Found some refs but too busy to do anything with them anytime soon. Perhaps someone would like to trawl them for linking the White Stork back to Pythagoras etc.

The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase and Fable - Wordsworth Reference Series, Author Ebenezer Cobham Brewer, Publisher Wordsworth Editions, 2001, ISBN 1840223103, 9781840223101, Length 1158 pages.

AshLin (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that past versions of this article had referenced facts which can be retrieved as also the past and present versions of Mythology in Stork. AshLin (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
And a couple of images that need more background for inclusion. Shyamal (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The Hans Christian Anderson illustration can be included, since it can go on the English Wikipedia, though not on Commons; I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. —innotata 00:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Might the one on the left refer to cranes? (I remember reading in a book on bird names about battles between cranes and pygmies recurring in ancient literature.) —innotata 00:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
That's book 3 of the Iliad. One translation is at s:The Iliad (Murray)/Book III. You're right, though; it's cranes, not storks. Ucucha 20:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Buzzard[edit]

At the moment, buzzard in the Culture section goes to a disamb page, should it be pointed to Turkey Vulture? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes. That's what most non-birding Americans are referring to when they say "buzzard". Just wondering if that would be considered "OR" by the OR police. It might be worth a footnote, with a reference. MeegsC | Talk 14:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't see fixing a disamb as OR, but I take your point. Added ref for name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To do?[edit]

Apart from the lead, which I assume will come last, I think the content is now pretty comprehensive. Is anything missing? We don't have any predators, but I suspect a bird this big has few natural enemies, nice if we could get a source that says that.

I think I have a source for that. I can still think of a few things we could add:
    • Territoriality? Site fidelity, etc. (apparently, this is more important than mate)
    • Social behaviours, including courtship.
    • The cultural section is completely Euro-centric. Is there nothing from India or Africa?
      • Probably incomplete as per European culture is concerned too. AshLin (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Although we don't want this section to get too unwieldy, or might need to hive off as separate article. Islam is not primarily a European religion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I guess also trying to enusre general stork material goes to that page, and just keep cultural material specific to the species here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Ditto for the population and conservation section.
    • We should put a hidden message in the "External links" section, telling people NOT to add nestcams to the article. MeegsC | Talk 18:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)  Done
  • I think the map legend looks strange, with the long red line. Is there any way to make it the same length as the color boxes? —focus 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It can be included in the map if need be, but I think in recent times the de facto norm has been to have external legends, one option is to skip the red line and caption the map appropriately. Shyamal (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should have the legend in the image, just that the red line is a bit long and it looks somewhat strange. —focus 02:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
After muddling with the legend template I think the problem is that the line is made to appear at mid height by altering the font size and that means that alignment is not scale free. The only way seems to be to us a table to align the legend and text blocks but I have posted a fix request for the legend alignment.
Breeding range
Winter range
––– Migration routes
  • There are long term population charts for some sites and it may be nice to have one to illustrate population changes and the country estimates would perhaps be nicer in a table. Shyamal (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a go at making the population data into a table when I get time. —focus 02:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, a table with the populations and population trends for each country would be pretty long. Perhaps there's a better way. Is the population for every country necessary to include in the prose? —focus 14:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
would agree with a trim, perhaps to totals of the western and eastern population from the most recent "International White Stork census". Is the Alsace-Lorraine decline particularly important ? Shyamal (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
No more than any other decline. It looks like someone added the information after reading a newspaper article. MeegsC | Talk 13:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Art[edit]

I am not sure where to put the art pictures showing storks, especially as one is very tall. I have put them in a gallery at the bottom of the page for the moment temporally, and put relevant photographs with the text. Comments welcome on any of the illustrations. The tall picture could be sized with an image width of about 100 to 120 px, which is smaller than for a normal shaped image, and put in the text. Snowman (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the images should be removed altogether, or somehow incorporated into the article. I like the idea of making the tall painting smaller. Care to try it? —focus 03:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Flocks in Africa[edit]

Re: File:Ciconia ciconia -Serengeti National Park, Tanzania -flock-8.jpg. Is there any literature on large flocks in Africa? Snowman (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Birds of the Western Palearctic says that the storks are "highly gregarious" in their wintering quarters (as well as on migration and at concentrations of food), congregating in flocks of "hundreds or even thousands". Most of Europe's White Storks overwinter in savanna from Kenya and Uganda south to the Cape Province of South Africa.
Ummm...know which page? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
328 for the bit about being gregarious, 331 for the bit about where they overwinter. MeegsC | Talk 03:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
terrific/thanks/added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I have placed the image on the page, but I have not got the image placement right yet and the caption could be better. The text needs a bit more detail about the flocking behaviour in the article. Do they gather to feed or roost or both? Presumably they are wading in the water shown in the image looking for food? Are these water pools/lakes a source of food? and if so what food is found there? Snowman (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the feeding section, frogs are a major food item Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, the photographer disturbed the flock, because all of them look like they are walking away from the camera, and it does do not look like they are looking for food. Snowman (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

migration[edit]

I've tidied migration. The original text gave the impression that one reason storks crossed at the Bosphorus and Gibraltar was to avoid the desert. In fact, soaring birds cross there to minimise the distance over the thermal-free Med. Many non-soaring birds cross the Med and Sahara on a broad front, and if the map is correct, North African storks also cross the desert Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Migrating birds are also seen on Cyprus, in the middle of the Mediterranean. It is a rare breeding bird there. From book; "Breeding Birds of Cyprus". There is not much detail in my book, and other books could be a better reference, if it is important. Snowman (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Some birds go astray, like those turning up in the UK, and especially the Madeira vagrant, so it's not surprising that some migrants turn up on Med islands, and even stay to breed. I don't think you need much detail, since it's pretty minor compared to the huge numbers through the Bosphorus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Distribution[edit]

A distribution section should probably be included, most of the information in the conservation status can be difficult to understand without historic distribution information. Have added a record of breeding from Scotland 1416 but this needs to move into a more comprehensive distribution section. Shyamal (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC) asiatica seems to have a deficit - would someone with access to - Ming Ma and Cai Dai. 2002. The fate of the White Stork (Ciconia ciconia asiatica) in Xinjiang, China. Abstract Volume. 23rd International Ornithological Congress, Beijing, August 11-17,2002, p.352 - add more ? Shyamal (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Article status?[edit]

The month's almost over, so I'm wondering what else needs to be done on this article. Perhaps it should be taken to GA nominations? —focus 23:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This species will have loads of material - I guess the first thing to think of is there anything else a layperson might want to know about it which is currently missing? (i.e. comprehensiveness) Once done, then checking refs and copyedit and nominate at GAN. Anyone is welcome to jot their opinions below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty good, not far off GA, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Who is going to take it to GAN? Main editors are MeegsC (90), Jimfbleak (83), Snowmanradio (57), Shyamal (52), Focus (35), Casliber (16). Meegs is the obvious nominator, I can't do it anyway because of forthcomming RL commitments that will lead to an extended wikibreak Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that the article seems not far off GA, but there may be omissions and MoS issues. I have been mainly concentrating on some MoS formatting, illustrations, and captions. I have not got the necessary books or easy library access to take it to GAN. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It is easy to make it a multiple-nominator GA of the top four or five contributors as it is a collaboration. Can anyone see some obvious bits missing? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Can it be nominated by unspecified collaborators and mention "WP Birds collaboration of the month" instead of users names? Snowman (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why we wouldn't be able to do that, but it will be listed on WP:GAN as the user who added the template to the talk page, since it's updated by a bot.—focus 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Look it doesn't matter as we can easily fiddle around to add some nominators. The problem with labelling the nominator "WP Birds collaboration of the month" is it is unclear to a reviewer (I guess) who is going to respond to issues raised. It's no big deal though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, one nom, MeegsC if willing, if not I'd suggest Cas — although a relatively minor contributor to this article, he has bags of experience at GAN and FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy to take it to GAN, but I too may be unreachable for a while in Jan-Feb. I've got 4 weeks of field work coming up, and will be in areas with unreliable internet access. Will there be others who can help if I'm not responding? MeegsC | Talk 01:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Great - what I was suggesting is that a few editors are listed (actually it doesn't matter really as no-one is keeping tabs) - I'll be around to help out with issues addressed, and some other editors will chip in too I guess. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
update - I added us all - I am sure any/all of us will try to fix problems - we're all active and chipping in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Palestine?[edit]

In the behavior section, where it lists Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine as making up the Levant, Palestine currently links to here, which mainly describes to the historical usage of the word 'Palestine'. This definition includes Israel, and much of Syria and Lebanon, so those countries could technically be removed from the list. Otherwise, Palestine should link to Palestinian territories or State of Palestine. I wanted to check in here before changing it, because this could be inaccurate or potentially controversial. —focus 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

suggest replacing with "eastern Mediterranean" to avoid waking the Israel/Palestine zealots Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the description of the Levant was removed entirely, that probably is fine. —focus 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Greeting display[edit]

Can someone add information on the greetind display where the head is thrown back. Perhaps in this http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1972.tb00852.x/abstract - not accessible to me. Shyamal (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Added a note from HBW Shyamal (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

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

Reviewer: Thompsma (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer: Hello, I shall take up the challenge of reviewing this interesting article. Storks are not my specialty, so I look forward to learning about these birds. I am a wildlife biologist with birding experience and so I hope that I can make some positive contributions. This may take some time, because this is my first time reviewing an article - so I hope that the authors are not in a rush. I will read through the entire article first and will start posting comments after I have a global picture. p.s. observers-additional comments and opinions are very welcome! Thompsma (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for putting your hand up to do this. Take your time and we are happy for you to be as exacting and nitpicking as possible, as giving the article a shove towards WP:FAC is an intended side-effect :))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I've actually volunteered to review ecology in exchange, but I'm really glad you plan to give this a thorough review. —focus 22:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • map is incorrect. The bird is not occured in Switzerland, (Last seen in 1950). 91.215.34.42 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Map at a global scale is not meant to be too accurate. In any case it is mentioned as breeding in Switzerland -here here and the map is largely based on existing source maps. Shyamal (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
ok, in first point I agree with You. So there is a next problem - sources inconsistency:

- "Berthold, P; Fiedler, W & Querner, U (2000). "White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) migration studies: basic research devoted to conservation measures". Global Environment Research 2: 133–141." mentioned last seen of free-living populations in Switzerland in 1950, while sources You cited negate this fact. All sources seem to be a reliable. Where is a mistake? If Berthold et. all information is true, white stork in Switzerland have a status B in a AERC classification - and this is an important fact. 91.215.34.42 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there have been declines, extirpations and reintroductions. It is possible that sources are talking about former breeders and reintroduced breeding populations. Whether the map is seen as current, former or as an envelope within which its probability of occurrence is high is a matter of interpretation. The caption of the map has since been marked as approximate. Shyamal (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to translate a paragraph from Polish wikipedia on white storks in Slavic cultures. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. The article should be carefully read with MoS in style, I just removed one rather unencylopedic exclamation mark from a regular sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that the Polish word for stork and birth (roda and rodita) share common roots. Is there any standard Polish etymology text that mentions this - with proper citation? Shyamal (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my delay and coming here. I've read through the article and will begin with Taxonomy and etymology and will return to the lead toward the end of my review. I have read through the article and looked to see if it qualifies in the first list of criteria to qualify for a GA and it seems to do so.Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy and etymology[edit]

  • "The White Stork was one of the many species originally described by Linnaeus in his 18th century work, Systema Naturae, where it was given the binomial name of Ardea ciconia." - shouldn't this be when (i.e., 18th century) it was given the binomial name?Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking here. It was given its binomial name by Linnaeus in that work. Are you asking for the specific year to be mentioned in the sentence? MeegsC | Talk 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi MeegsC...Actually that sentence is fine. Where refers to his work - when I first read it I was looking at 18th century and thinking that it should say when. This is my first review - so bear with me. I'll try to be more careful as I move along.Thompsma (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely no problem! Just want to be sure we understand where things are unclear, so we can improve them. I think I'm safe in saying we're very happy for the review, trust me!  :) MeegsC | Talk 04:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The preceding sentence cites Linnaeus' (1758) original work, but I doubt that is where the information for that sentence actually came from. Is there a more appropriate citation that describes this part of the history?Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC) - I changed the position of the citation, so this is fixed.Thompsma (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure it is! Are you asking for a more recent reference saying that's where it came from? MeegsC | Talk 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm probably quibbling over too insignificant of a point here, but the footnote should go right after Systema Naturae:

The White Stork was one of the many species originally described by Linnaeus in his 18th century work, Systema Naturae[1], where it was given the binomial name of Ardea ciconia.Thompsma (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Some information on the evolution of this species could be included as well - perhaps here: [2] or [3]. Taxonomy and evolution is a more common sub-heading that I have seen - etymology usually goes with taxonomy.Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Good idea! MeegsC | Talk 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Though on second thought, I'm wondering if this might be more appropriate at the stork article; there is nothing in either of the articles you listed that is specific to this species, only to the family as a whole. MeegsC | Talk 21:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I think a sentence or two could be added that would tell the reader something that is evolutionary unique about this species.Thompsma (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but that might be tough to find. The two articles you linked to talk about storks in general rather than the White Stork. We'll have a look to see if more specific information is available... MeegsC | Talk 04:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi MeegsC, we only need two or three sentences explaining its closest relatives and based on the information in here (Ericson et al., 2006)[4] we can say that storks are evolutionarily related to pelicans, the shoebill, the hamerkop, herons, ibises, penguins, and loons, which is designated as an aquatic/semi-aquatic group. This aquatic group branched off from the terrestrial and arboreal groups in the Paleocene. In the Tree of Life (TOL) web project (http://tolweb.org/%27Water_Birds%27/123207) you can see some of the birds listed from the "aquatic/semi-aquatic group" from (Ericson et al., 2006) are named "water birds" in the TOL, just different naming conventions. The storks, Ciconiiformes branched off from their sister group, the Pelecaniformes some time after the Paleocene, but Watanabe et al. (2006)[5] found evidence of close affiliation with penguins (Sphenisciformes); the Watanabe et al. (2006) study, however, did not include representatives from Pelecaniformes so the TOL is more reliable in this regard. The closest living relative of Ciconia ciconia[6] is the Oriental Stork C. boyciana and the TOL provides the following citations:
  • Boles, W. E. 2005. A review of the Australian fossil storks of the genus Ciconia (Aves : Ciconiidae), with the description of a new species. Records of the Australian Museum 57(2):165-178.[7]
  • Slikas, B. 1997. Phylogeny of the avian family Ciconiidae (storks) based on cytochrome b sequences and DNA-DNA hybridization distances. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 8: 275-300.
The Boles (2005) paper is available online (linked above) and it contains a treasure trove of information that is specific to Ciconia ciconia. This paper[8] says that Ciconia ciconia fossils are possibly found in Miocene deposits of Kenya. Hope this helps!!Thompsma (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I took a closer read of the fossil article and note that the Kenyan fossil that is similar to C. ciconia - but they did not say it was this species: "Although the two living species of Ciconia that fall within the size range of our material, the White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) and the Black Stork (C. nigra), are strikingly different in their external appearance they are very similar osteologically. Hence, with the exception of some characteristic elements (see above), separation of the two on morphological grounds is often impossible." However, the paper gives the following reference regarding C. ciconia: "Further material indistinguishable from the extant White Stork, Ciconia ciconia, is also known from the Middle Miocene of Maboko Island (Andrews et al., 1981)."Thompsma (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This is good. I can get got fulltext of Slikas, which looks like it contradicts our existing 1984 ref on closest relative. Will read tonight hopefully done and added. Now for Added other fossil study Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
NB: I think the scope and scale of the article is such that discussing pelicans and hammerkops etc. is at a much higher level (stork family etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
@Casliber...yes, the scope and scale should be kept in focus - I added the extra information about evolution in here for context so that editors could pick, choose, and distill the appropriate information. The section now reads quite well - thanks!!Thompsma (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The etymology links to the Meriam-Webster online dictionary, which I suppose will suffice. I wonder if there is a better citation - perhaps [9]??Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC) - Looks like Casliber put in a more appropriate citation.Thompsma (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have the longer OED...as soon as I can find some batteries for the magnifying glass...updated Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "The stork family contains six genera in three major groups: ...": what is "major groups". Is this sub-family, tribe, or what? Snowman (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure it has an official rank as such. I changed "major" to "broad" and will hunt to see if they are labelled tribe or subfamilies. I don't have Handbook of the Birds of the World which is where it comes from. I will recover Slikas 1997 though Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "It was moved to the new genus Ciconia ..."; why was there a need to move the genus? Snowman (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Because if you look at the Aves in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae, you'll see that Linnaeus lumped all sorts of herons, cranes and storks together in a genus Ardea. The genus Ciconia was erected by Mathurin Jacques Brisson, and I think it was Ornithologia sive Synopsis methodica sistens avium divisionem in ordines, sectiones, genera, species, ipsarumque varietates. There is a free download for looking if anyone is good at french to check. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If this was new genus, then was is a split rather than a move? Snowman (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, reclassified - the species is what's being moved, so it is not being split. Changed to "reclassified" as it is the exact (although longer) word. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
If there was not a split, then were other storks reclassified with it to keep a group of storks together? Snowman (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes - I think origianlly only the white and black storks were known to Linnaeus, hence Brisson moved them together to a new genus (he did a few rearrangements and created new genera). Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Should the old name "Ardea ciconia" be listed as a synonym in the infobox? Snowman (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a pretty antiquated one..maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Is that a yes or a no? Snowman (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Strictly it is, so ...yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Description[edit]

  • "The White Stork is a large bird, 100–115 cm (39–45 in) tall, with a 195–215 cm (77–85 in) wingspan[12] and a weight of 2.3–4.4 kg (5.1–9.7 lb)." - The proper structure should be: The adult White Stork is a large bird with an average height measuring 100–115 cm (39–45 in), an average wingspan measuring 195–215 cm (77–85 in) wingspan, and an average weight of 2.3–4.4 kg (5.1–9.7 lb).Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC) - This issue has been resolved.Thompsma (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Except "average" would not be correct here, as the range of all known heights, wingspans and weights are listed. Or are you suggesting we find a single number rather than a range? MeegsC | Talk 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right MeegsC - sorry for the mess-up, I should know better since I just completed a stats course!! Range is the correct word. Perhaps the following: "The adult White Stork is a large bird having a range in height that spans 100–115 cm (39–45 in), a wingspan ranging from 195–215 cm (77–85 in) wingspan, and a weight that ranges from 2.3–4.4 kg (5.1–9.7 lb)."Thompsma (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced they are the ranges of all known dimensions, because outliers would distort the impression. I would guess that the ranges are probably approximately 95% inclusion ranges (or within a standard deviation) and not 100% inclusion between the ranges. I would welcome clarification. I have simplified the grammar. Snowman (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in the literature I've read to suggest they've "thrown out" outliers, so it would smack of OR to include something like that. Many of the references I have tell how many birds were measured to come up with the numbers. Certainly, there could be "outliers", but until they're found and measured and published, we can't assume they're there, and we can't include them! MeegsC | Talk 21:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you have changed it for the worse "It ranges from 100–115 cm (39–45 in) in height, ..." does not make sense. This make is look like you are referring to a range for the lower limit only. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That's very standard wording Snowman; range means exactly that — a range between two numbers. Some of our FAs have similar wording: for example, Australian Magpie has "The adult magpie is a fairly solid, sturdy bird ranging from 37 to 43 cm (14.5–17 in) in length." But if you don't like it, change it. MeegsC | Talk 01:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with MeegsC that it is quite standard wording and that there is really no reason to misinterpret it as referring to the lower limit alone. The only change that is possible is to replace the hyphen with a "to" but it means you add units twice etc. Any interpretations involving confidence intervals would certainly be OR. Morphometric variation would further break up into clinal, population and gender components and is only rarely studied in that detail. Shyamal (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, there should be a "to" in the line or it does not make sense. The range is "from" a certain size "to" another size. I am used to looking at research papers that give standard deviations, and I so I find it unusual that a range only is provided for bird dimensions. Snowman (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "It ranges from 100–115 cm (39–45 in) in height, and from ...": It is obvious that the format of these ranges is inconsistent with the ranges in the introduction, egg size ranges, and numerous population statistics. Snowman (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the dash means or implies "to". I did a search in a few journals and found many published examples where they just used "the egg size ranges from" with a dash "-" between the numbers, there was no "to" in the text (see [10], [11]). However, some articles do use "to" (see [12], [13]). Some articles (e.g., [14]) use this convention "ranges between 0.13 and 0.22". The linked examples I give were freely available and may not relate to egg size, but they give ranges. I also looked through some of my subscriptions and note that there is a variety of styles. Hence, everyone is correct - it is a matter of style. Just pick one style for the article and keep it consistent - that is the best solution.Thompsma (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Different papers may have there own in-house styles; however, for the Wiki, answer is here; "Numerical ranges use unspaced en dashes if only one unit symbol is used at the end (e.g. 5.9–6.3 kg), and spaced en dashes if two symbols are used (e.g., 3 μm – 1 mm); ranges in prose can be specified using either unit symbol or unit names, and units can be stated either after both numerical values or after the last (e.g., from 5.9 to 6.3 kilograms, from 5.9 kilograms to 6.3 kilograms, from 5.9 to 6.3 kg and from 5.9 kg to 6.3 kg are all acceptable)."; see MoS at MOS:CONVERSIONS (it is a long page and viewers might have to search for it under the level three heading "Unit names and symbols"). To me this says use prose properly (with "to" and "from" and no endash) or use a endash (without "to" or "from"). Unfortunately, the current version used for the dimensions of the bird in the article is neither proper prose or properly abbreviated with an endash. There may be more than one correct way to write a range on the wiki, but the version currently on the page used for the dimensions of the bird is wrong according to MoS. Snowman (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful insight and wikilink Snowman. Perhaps you could or wouldn't mind doing the corrections?Thompsma (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I fixed the mistakes with wording going back to how I wrote it about one week ago. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the word "height" to "length", as that's what the measurement is. Birds are traditionally measured from the tip of the bill to the tip of the tail, with the bird laid out on its back. Height doesn't come into it. MeegsC | Talk 03:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. I have made it clearer by adding what the measurement is. There is an example in MoS like this confirming that this addition is approved on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I usually place a comma after a sentence list, such as this, that, and this. I'm not sure of the wikipedia convention - perhaps someone will have an answer on this? Whatever convention is used - it should remain consistent throughout the article.Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not know what part of the page this is about. Has it already been fixed? Snowman (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There are examples throughout the article. Using Firefox I do a search for "and" and then highlight. In the lead you can read: "The two subspecies, which differ slightly in size, breed in the warmer parts of Europe (north to Estonia), northwestern Africa, southwestern Asia (east to southern Kazakhstan), and southern Africa" - the comma is at the end of the list. However, in another sentence below: "The sexes are similar in appearance, with mainly white plumage, although some feathers on the wings—the primaries and secondaries, primary coverts, greater upperwing coverts, scapulars and alula—are black" - the sentence lacks of comma at the end of the list. Someone needs to go through and make sure that the style remains consistent. In the sub-species section you can read: "C. c. ciconia, the nominate subspecies described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758, breeds from Europe to northwest Africa and westernmost Asia, and in southern Africa, and winters mainly in Africa south of the Sahara Desert" - there's a few misplaced and's in that sentence that needs to be sorted out.Thompsma (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not understand. At "... , and southern Africa." There is a full stop at the end of the list and not a comma. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry snowman, trying to edit on the fly here and shouldn't have said at the end of the list, but preceding the final item at the end of the list. There are two correct ways of putting a list together in a sentence. For example (using simplified text for demonstration purposes only): Version 1: "The White Stork lives in Europe, Africa, and Asia." vs. Version 2: "The White Stork lives in Europe, Africa and Asia." Both versions are correct. You can either have a comma preceding the final item at the end of the list or you can leave it out. This article has some sentences with a comma and some that do not. All sentences must adopt the same style.Thompsma (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am aware of that. I usually use the former in science as bolt and braces, because I think this can be less ambiguous. Of course, the article is a patchwork made by many editors. Whatever style is chosen at the end of the day, it should make sense and not be ambiguous. Snowman (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I am happy to go with the commas after the 'and's - I think I got them all ...(?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This paper[15] has some interesting information on the coloration. I have access to the articles - so I will post one paragraph that contains a lot of information that might be useful herein: "Adult White Storks Ciconia ciconia of both sexes exhibit bright red coloration of their bills, legs, and on the bare skin of their chins and throats (Cramp 1998). Recent studies have revealed that these integuments are coloured by astaxanthin, which is a carotenoid pigment (Negro & Garrido-Fernández 2000, Negro et al. 2000). The legs of newly hatched nestlings are pink and with age turn grey-black (Cramp 1998). Typically, the dull red coloration of the legs of juveniles appears only after they fledge (Cramp 1998). In some Spanish populations of White Storks that have carotenoid-rich diets, nestlings have beaks and legs that are nearly as red as those of adults (Negro et al. 2000). Such rapid development of coloration in nestling White Storks seems to be an exception. However, in some populations, nestlings exhibit grey-black leg coloration accompanied by pale yellow to pale orange patches (J. Kosicki unpubl. data). These observations suggest that some carotenoid pigments may exist in legs of juvenile nestlings of populations other than the Spanish population (Negro et al. 2000)." - If anyone requires information or access to another journal - please let me know.Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I really need to get to sleep now - and I am pretty sure I can get the fulltext of this one, I want to check Cramp and the others listed - Negro 2000. Right now it is 130 am and I need to get to sleep, so sometime tomorrow I will resume this. Once I read the NEgro paper I think that'll be a better cite for the pigment this appears to have been added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Its bill is typically paler at the base with a darker tip". This is about the juvenile. More detail needed about the colours. Paler colour of what? Darker colour of what? Snowman (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Now here is the tricky bit. We can discuss the variation in juvenile bill colour, but to do that means discussing carotenoid pigment...however that is not raised until further down the page.However, given the red coloration of nestlings in Spain is in fact unusual, we can I guess leave and add it in the section right after the crayfish bit. All added I see. I am presuming the "paler" above can only mean pinkish colour (I would assume the "paler" is "paler than red" as it is discussed right after adult bill coloration, and the study above seems to confirm that.). reddish coloration of immature legs. (oops, rereading) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you can make amendments to your own edits without a strike through as long as no one has replied. I was thinking of it as an anatomical description only. You are having to make assumptions to interpret the vague text to extrapolate what colours the juvenile's beak could be. The text in this section could add "there is some variation with different diets" keeping it simple in the description section and it can be more detailed in the diet section. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the sentence immediately before the one you've listed says "... its bill and legs are a duller brownish red." I guess we could say "Its legs are a duller reddish brown and its bill is a pale dull reddish brown at the base with a darker reddish brown to black tip", but that sounds unnecessary and rather unwieldy to me. I think that if you read the two sentences together, it's pretty clear; if you don't agree, change it as you see fit. MeegsC | Talk 04:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a guess, but it is correct? The article does not satisfactorily describe the colour changes of the beak as the young bird grows. At what stage does it have this appearance of the juvenile in this image shown in the article; File:Ciconia_ciconia_-Vogelpark_Avifauna,_The_Netherlands_-juvenile-8a.jpg - the proximal third is is red the distal two thirds is dark brown and the very tip is yellowish. I would have never have concluded that the juvenile's beak looks like this at one stage during its development from the text. I do not know how old the juvenile in the image is, but this colour phase should be included in the text. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not a guess; it's taken from the very literature that the footnote references refer to. I have been told that — despite our being able to use our eyes — under Wikipedia rules, we cannot use a photograph to "validate" information. Seems a bit nuts to me, since we can clearly see what's in the photo, but it must be published in a RS first. (Maybe because it's so easy to manipulate photos now?) Nothing I've read (and I've read a lot about White Storks lately) says a thing about the timing of the young bird's beak color change, and whether it's normal to have a yellow tip. In fact, none of the references I've read says a thing about a yellow tip. So putting it in, without finding something in a reference none of us has (apparently) found isn't possible under WP rules. MeegsC | Talk 12:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not think the photograph is a fraud. I was just pointing out that I think the current text it too vague and showed the photograph to emphasise this. I should have said tipped with brwon (or yellowish-brown) and not yellowish. Incidentally, just before the ambiguous phrase ("Its bill is typically paler at the base with a darker tip") under the microscope here, the article says about newly hatched chicks "Its bill is black with a brownish tip.[13] ". Clearly being brown (or yellowish-brown) the tip is paler than the dark black of the beak proximal to the tip. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Possible omission: How tall it the bird when it is standing of firm ground from the ground to the top of its head? Snowman (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a regular measurement, so I'm not sure we'll find it published anywhere. Length and wingspan, and length of various feathers, wing chords, etc. are standard. Height is not in HBW, BWP or any of the Eurasian/African field guides I have access to. MeegsC | Talk 04:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The Ostrich article has a bird height. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Given that a stork stands with a somewhat erect posture, I too did wonder about height. However we can only go on published sources, and I concede I have not seen a height mentioned as such Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Habitat and distribution[edit]

  • "The preferred foraging habitat of the White Stork are meadows and shallow wetlands." - reword to "Meadows and shallow wetlands are the preferred habitat of the White Stork."Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have deleted that line on foraging which is about feeding - it is a theme already in the feeding section. Snowman (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This paper[16] and this paper[17] gives some interesting information that could possibly be included on the habitat and distribution; please let me know if you cannot access the url's and I will help you to obtain the articles. This species has a very wide range and so I think there is likely more to the habitat preferences beyond 'Meadows and shallow wetlands' that could be expanded upon.Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Read them both - nice ones. Added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "However birds ringed in Germany have been recovered in western..." - shouldn't it read 'tagged' or 'banded' as in bird banding? Perhaps ringed is another term that I'm not as familiar with, but tagged or banded seems more common.Thompsma (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I notice in the migration section of the article that ringed is used and it is wikilinked (ringed). Hence, I am satisfied with ringed as the term of choice, but wikilinks need to appear where the terms are first mentioned in the article (i.e., "However birds ringed in Germany have been...").Thompsma (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I notice that the next section on behavior discusses the migration of this species. I wonder if migration would be better suited under this sub-heading - it seems more relevant to the distribution than behavior.Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think a "Migration" sub-heading would be helpful. Snowman (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The following sentences need work:
done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Greater breeding densities are found near rivers and in the floodplains with wet grasslands. They probably were aided by human activities during the Middle Ages as woodland was cleared and new pastures and farmland was created, and they were found across much of Europe, breeding even as far north as Sweden. In 1416, a pair nested atop St. Giles's Church in Edinburgh, Scotland and are otherwise only known to be rare visitors on the British Isles.[22] A decline in populations began in the 19th Century due to industrialisation and changes in agricultural methods."

  • The second sentence starts with 'They', but who are they? It is better to use the proper noun. "White Storks were likely aided by human activities..." or "The distribution of White Storks was likely increased by human activities..." The third sentence is anecdotal and needs to be put into broader context. For example, a quick search revealed that[18]"The migratory white stork (Ciconia ciconia) became extinct in Switzerland in 1950." There is a very wide range that needs to be covered here - broaden the context so that the reader can see the big picture that parallels the range map. Where did the decline in populations occur?Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Changed the "they", will look at broadening info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The section is too terse and disjointed. Snowman (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The reviewer has identified more information which can be added. I have looked at one of the linked articles and agree. It would be prudent to add more material before copyediting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that some people have done some edits on this section, so I'll move on and will return here. For now, I would just say that the first sentence to this paragraph does not work. The first sentence should be the topic sentence that introduces the main idea of the paragraph. This sentence: "Greater breeding densities are found near rivers and in the floodplains with wet grasslands." does not achieve this.Thompsma (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
First sentence now changed. Some material added. Musing on ferreting up some more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This section still requires some work. The first sentence states the following: "The White Stork's preferred feeding grounds are grassy meadows, farmland and shallow wetlands." - this has less to do with distribution and more to do with habitat. The first sentence should be very general, stating something about the overall distribution - such as: "The White Stork is widely distributed in its disjunct winter range through Europe, including western European countries (Spain...) and a large percentage of the in Eastern and central Europe, with 25% of the world's populations foundconcentrated in Poland.[19] Summer migration routes extend the range of this species into many parts of Africa and India. Some populations adhere to the eastern migration route, which passes across Israel into eastern Africa....[20][21][22] (can the migration routes be named - or perhaps this should be reserved for the section on migration - it will be difficult to deal with the overlap?) The distribution has changed over time with some sites remaining stable over time, such as the discovery of fossil deposits in Kenya from the Miocene that are similar to the modern species and fossils that have been identified as the modern variety (Ciconia ciconia) from middle Miocene deposits on Maboko Island, Kenya.[23] This species strong fidelity to their place of birth likely contributes to the stable migration routes that have been established; "the majority of birds select breeding sites at a distance of c. 50 km from their place of birth"[24]:84 and females tend to settle further from their natal sites than males.[25] "In addition, displacement experiments with European Starlings Sturnus wulgaris and White Storks Ciconia ciconia have indicated preprogrammed migratory directions (reviewed by Helbig 1989, Berthold 1990d)."[[26]]:37 However, changes to the distribution do occur and include breeding colonies established in South Africa in the 1930's that now form a stable part of the contemporary range.[27]" - the preceding is an example of how the first paragraph could generally introduce this topic and it follows logically from the distribution image. It lets the reader go through the text, look at the map, and piece the bits together. The current first paragraph introduces information about their distribution in waste dumps and Chernobyl, which is very specific & anecdotal information and this should have a lower priority toward the end of this section.Thompsma (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I've partly done this, so now we have first para distribution, second habitat, and third changes/impacts/discussion. The latter bit can go into migration which I will do later, but Real Life has intervened and I have some chores to do at the moment (Saturday daytime here plus burthday party last night). Still need to format some refs etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Behaviour[edit]

  • The first two paragraphs are about migration and should be put into a separate sub-heading as Snowman suggested. Distribution could be a main heading with Migration and Habitat as sub-headings, because they are part of the distribution. (See proposal for new sub-heading organization below) Thompsma (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
agree. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The last two paragraphs in this section are hanging out alone. The very last paragraph, "The oldest known wild White Stork..."isn't even a paragraph. At least three sentences are needed to make a complete paragraph.Thompsma (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
These sentences on longevity are tricky to place. I am hoping we find some data on sexual maturity, then I can place in some lifespan bit segnment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I always like to look in the free literature for additional information and will post those links here. People can choose to extract and incorporate the information, but being careful not to expand the length of the article beyond its useful scope. The following abstract[28] can be freely accessed with some information on the behaviour. This paper[29] talks about flight behaviour. Here is another paper[30] that talks about migration and behaviour.Thompsma (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Information from the article on frequent copulation has been added, as has that from the one on flight behaviour. Both 28 and 29 link to the same article above Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I will post information on migration and predators that I can obtain through my access to journal articles. Without making the article too long, this information may help to bridge some of the sections dealing with Migration and even Predators. I've tried to find what animals prey on white storks and finding little information - articles mention that the eggs are subject to heavy predation, but never state what animals are involved. This book[31] say's that a caracal killed a stork. The following excerpt from [32] has some information in this respect:

"FLIGHT Ciconia ciconia is highly adapted for migration by its behavioral and anatomical specializations for long distance soaring. Flapping flight is a slow and probably exhausting process which they avoid whenever possible; instead they save energy by soaring. They circle upward, wings outstretched, on any rising current of air and then soar off in the direction wanted, to seek another rising current. This practice, called "riding the thermals," has been discussed in detail for the White Stork by Mackintosh (1949). It has been noted by many authors before and since that article, for accipitrine birds as well as storks, and described in poetic language for storks in Syria and Palestine by Hutson (1944b). The sight of a group of storks soaring upward in a whirling spiral appears to be a stimulus to every stork at low altitude to join the group. As each reaches the top of the ascending air column, it levels off, following the one before, and, while a constant stream of storks from all directions may thus be entering such an inverted vortex at the bottom, a single stream emerges at the top, often so high that from the ground each stork appears to be only a dot in the sky. The altitude of the tops of these ascending spirals of birds has been variously estimated to be 4000 to 5000 ft (Meinertzhagen 1920, 1954a), but in western Sudan (Vincent 1948) the storks have been seen from an airplane to be flying as high as 10,800 ft(...)Storks immobilized on the ground for several days and nights, unwilling to move and incapable of sustained flight, are obviously subject to hunger, thirst, and predators. At present possible predators in Egypt are man (Nubians and Bedouins for food, others for target practice), hyenas, jackals, and foxes. The latter would probably function as scavengers, but hyenas and jackals, in a land providing a minimum of protein, might well make nocturnal attacks on such immobilized storks, although we have no evidence on this point."Thompsma (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It must be amazing to see. Surely, the sort of stuff in this reference would be useful in the "Migration" section. I wonder if storks at a high altitude leaving the top of a thermal can see birds ascending in thermals ahead of them and glide there to encounter the next thermal. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I have read the fulltext of the article. The page in google books referring to the caracal is blocked to me (I am in Australia). If it is just about one caracal killing one, I'd be inclined to leave it out. I'd be inclined to leave out speculative comments about hyenas and jackals (I guess I'd say I don't think there is much notable about an oppotunistic predator possibly killing off an exhausted stork now and then. The reference does have some good material on the migration. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
PS: Above segment now summarised and added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The new organization with migration taken out of the behaviour section is very short. There is an article in Animal Behaviour on White Storks[33], but for some reason my library access isn't working. Perhaps someone has access? - or I'll check in with our librarian. However, the abstract gives some information about alloparental care that could be added. This article[34] also has information about the bahaviour, but there is overlap with information about foraging that shouldn't be duplicated. Although, this paper[35] has more information about breeding, there is some behavioural stuff that can be found. This paper[36] gives an example of White Storks wringing moss in their beak to give water to their chicks - fascinating!!Thompsma (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
yep. good stuff. will digest and add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There have been changes to this section and it is looking better. However, the first paragraph is hanging without a sub-heading and it needs a general introductory overview. For example:
"Like all animals, the behaviour of the White Stork is related to its broader ecological context in accordance with its evolved brain structure and function.[37] The White Stork has a larger brain structure relative to other species in Ciconiidae (Brain size: 15.4 cm3, Foramen magnum area: 55.9 mm2)[38] and its social structure is classed as covey (group size: 5 to 50 birds), which commonly evolves into a hierarchical organization of pecking orders and leks in other birds.[[39]] Social structure and group cohesion is maintained by altruistic behaviours such as allopreening as exhibited by White Storks that engage in this activity onto the heads of other birds that are standing nearby the nest irrespective of gender.[40] However, groups among White Stork colonies vary widely in size and the social structure is loosely defined. Young storks are often restricted to peripheral nests, while older storks attain higher breeding success while occupying the better quality nests toward the centers of breeding colonies.[41] The White Stork is an altricial bird, but nestlings have a highly flexible and variable capacity to adjust and control their energetic budgets according to prevailing conditions. For example, nestlings can delay growth until they are properly fed.[42] They gradually attain their independent ability to endothermically thermoregulate body temperature in the nest. Within the first weeks of parental care the microclimate in the nest, brood size, and basal metabolic rates are contributing factors that maintain a nesting's body temperature at least 90% of adult’s body temperature.[43] The droppings of adult storks, containing faeces and urine, makes the legs appear white and helps to thermoregulate body temperature through evaporative cooling; this behaviour is called urohidrosis.[2][3] The White Stork is behaviourally unique among Ciconiidae because it never adopts a spread-winged posture, though it is known to droop its wings (holding them away from its body with the primary feathers pointing downwards) when its plumage is wet.[4] The White Stork has also been noted for tool use by squeezing moss in the beak to drip water into the mouths of their chicks.[44][5] Other factors that have bearing on their behaviour and brain evolution include their migratory behaviour, monogamous breeding structure, carnivorous feeding habits, aerial habits, and that their vocalizations are innate instead of being learned.[45]"Thompsma (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This is just a suggestion and it could probably use some trimming/edits, but an introductory paragraph of this kind is needed for a general overview on the behaviour and lead into the sub-sections. The citation formats require editing.Thompsma (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Reading through the paragraph that I quickly put together the other day (above) - it needs lots of work. However, I hope that some of the information will be helpful. The take home message is that the ideas from one sentence to another, from one paragraph to another needs to be linked by a steady stream of thought without straying far off topic.Thompsma (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph is helpful as a guide, though it might end up significantly different to the above once in the article. I need to digest this bit Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay - have looked at some of it. I guess some of the sources mention storks only tangentially, and I think to stay firmly away from OR territory, it'd be prudent to have some secondary sources discussing storks' behaviour. I am still considering how to go about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Update - I now have the notes from Cramp (comprehensive secondary soruce - see reflist at bottom, and am abole to concoct something here Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
adding material now... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
given the size of the article, I am leaving out the material on thermoregulation as this is true of all altricial birds (i.e. they are small and need insulation until they are big enough to thermoregulate) - nothing really noteworthy about noting it here for this species Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
" Other factors that have bearing on their behaviour and brain evolution include their migratory behaviour, monogamous breeding structure, carnivorous feeding habits, aerial habits, and that their vocalizations are innate instead of being learned" - this sentence seems a bit circular and doesn't really add anything specific to the article - you could say this about all species and the behavioural attributes which influence their Casliber|contribs]]) 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
" Other factors that have bearing on their behaviour and brain evolution (??)...and the article's getting pretty big...so am trying to restrict to more specific info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "... and a cat-like mew they use to beg for food"; is this an unnecessary anthropomorphism? Snowman (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, food-begging is a pretty standard way of describing the calls of young birds, and cat-like I think is a good descriptor as it gives a good auditory impression to the reader. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think "producer call" is the proper name, and that it is more apt. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I have never heard that term. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Feeding[edit]

  • This is a long paragraph. It needs to be broken into smaller sections with topic sentences and better structure. For example, "The red colour of the bill is derived from..." could start a new paragraph. There are some truly amazing facts in this paragraph, but it is missing a narrative to thread the ideas together.Thompsma (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the red bill bit is separate...but that para is pretty stubby. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It is stubby and it is too short to be a paragraph. You need at least 3 sentences to have a complete paragraph. The information is interesting, and it has a great citation, but I wonder if we could just cut off that last bit?Thompsma (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I reorganized feeding paras (1) = general and summer (2) = winter (not great but splitting this is difficult any other way) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "The diet of non-breeding birds is similar to that of breeding birds, but is more often taken from dry areas." - just noticed that the second part to this sentence does not make sense - just cut it. It is enough to say that the diet is similar - which implies that it is not exact and should suffice.Thompsma (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Tweaked to "food items are more often taken.." - I think it is a point worth making. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I am working on all being "Smith, John" ..just to find all the names.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "The White Stork is a generalist feeder, ..."; this is followed by a list of animal foods. If it does not eat vegetable food, then presumably it is not a generalist feeder. Snowman (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
actually, "generalist" could apply as it eats a wide variety of animals, but so do alot of carnivorous birds. I agree it adds little and will remove it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "The White Stork takes food from the ground or from shallow water, and occasionally from low plants." - should that read aquatic plants instead of low plants? Does it harvest food that is hiding in the plants - this sentence isn't entirely clear in this respect.Thompsma (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking low plants as in the reference - an aquatic plant is a specific term for one which grows wholly in the water, like seaweed or some pondweeds etc, not for instance reeds. Given the stork hunts on the ground, I take it to mean it catching critters in reeds or low bushes maybe just above the water as well as in it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, aquatic plants are defined by their adaptations to saturated of flooded soils leading to hypoxia and anoxia (I just finished a graduate course in aquatic plants). However, that is beside the point. The sentence has been modified, but I don't like the revised version: "Taking food from the ground or from shallow water, and occasionally from low plants,[21] the White Stork consumes a wide variety of animal prey." p.s. - the doi link for that citation is busted - check (From the website[46]: Johst, Karin, Rolan Brandl, and Robert Pfeifer. 2001. FORAGING IN A PATCHY AND DYNAMIC LANDSCAPE: HUMAN LAND USE AND THE WHITE STORK. Ecological Applications 11:60–69. [doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0060:FIAPAD]2.0.CO;2]). Revise the sentence, possibly to the following: "The White Stork consumes a wide variety of animal prey. They prefer to forage in meadows that are approximately with 5km of their nest and sites where the vegetation is shorter so that their prey is more accessible."Thompsma (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a good rejig. I'll take it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*"Its preferred feeding grounds are grassy meadows, farmland and shallow wetlands. It avoids areas overgrown with tall grass and shrub.[51] In the Chernobyl area, stork populations declined after the nuclear accident as farmland changed into tall grass shrub.[52]" - This information is more related to habitat.Thompsma (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It is somewhat tricky to draw a line between feeding behaviour and habitat, but I have an idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This section is reading better. The first sentence, "The White Stork consumes a wide variety of animal prey..." should follow by saying "The White Stork consumes a wide variety of animal prey and is classified as a carnivore." This paper[47] lists this species as a carnivore and could be used as a citation to back up the claim.Thompsma (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Breeding[edit]

  • The third sentence starts with 'Because', which makes english teachers cringe. You can do this, but I notice that the seventh sentence in does this as well. As a matter of style, it is better to start sentences with because sparingly.Thompsma (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Paired birds have a greeting display that consists of up-down and head-shaking crouch displays. A greeting display consists of clattering the bill while throwing back the head." - In the first sentence display is repeated twice. The first second sentence should go first as the general case followed by the specific sub-example of greetings when birds are signalling to their mates.Thompsma (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I tried "Paired birds greet by engaging in up-down and head-shaking crouch displays, and clattering the beak while throwing back the head" i.e. these are behaviours/displays engaged in when they greet, hence "greeting display" could be construed as tautological (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that reads better.Thompsma (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Although extra-pair copulations are low and mate fidelity is high, pairs copulate frequently a month before the eggs are laid." - I don't understand the logic of although in this sentence? The first part is a tautology - if promiscuity is low, of course fidelity is high.Thompsma (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
has been removed (before I got 'ere) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If there is sperm competition, then this should be made clear. Snowman (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "A White Stork pair raises a single brood a each year." - fix and make start a new paragraph here.Thompsma (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Omission: dimensions of nest. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Now added. Snowman (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The rest of this section is well written and I like it. Good job!Thompsma (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Parasites[edit]

  • This section could use some trimming. It is interesting, but it seems like someone read through the papers on parasites and got a little carried away. Is it really necessary to include all the latin names with wikilinks to each mite? It might be fine, but it might be a bit too much detail. Anyone else have thoughts on this? I do know that nest mites are an important part of avian ecology - so some might feel that this is entirely appropriate.Thompsma (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer to keep the names. I think it will look better once a couple of sentences are added as you suggest below, which I intend to do in hte next 24-48 hours. It is morning here and I need to go off and do RL chores, much as I'd prefer to stay here and fix them now :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Parasitic mites do not occur, perhaps being controlled by the predatory species." - should be a little more clear, e.g.: "Predatory mites and other invertebrates adding to the ecology of the nest may serve an important hygenic role, such as preying upon and regulating the abundance of parasitic mites." - There is more information in the cited papers that could be used to improve on the narative of this section, which currently reads a bit like a laundry list of species that parasitize the bird.Thompsma (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I have expanded this a little Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Although these articles: [48], [49] only have online abstracts available, they give a little more insight into other kinds of parasites. Otherwise, I did a thorough survey of the literature on this species and its parasites and couldn't find much beyond what is cited.Thompsma (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Using my access privilege, I copied some text from here[50] - this information may be useful:

"The trematode Chaunocephalus ferox (Family: Echinostomatidae) has been reported from the black stork (Ciconia nigra), white stork (C. ciconia), bittern (Botaurus stellaris), black-necked stork (Xenorhynchus asiaticus), and Asian openbilled stork (Anastomus oscitans) (12,17). The life cycle of C. ferox includes water snails as first and amphibians and fish as second intermediate hosts. Typical lesions in the intestine of the definitive host are granulomatous encapsulations containing two flukes(...)To our knowledge, this report is the first description of C. ferox in white storks in Spain (5). A high prevalence of this parasite has been found in Asian open-billed storks, where it was observed to cause disease and, on occasion, death due to malnutrition (12). Overall prevalence in the examined group (free-living injured birds) was lower than in the Asian open-billed storks examined in Thailand but higher than in free-living storks collected in Germany (n - 95; prevalence of C. ferox, 4.2%) (13). The infection with C. ferox in nestlings of white storks may be responsible in several cases for the parental infanticide or "throwing-outof-the-nest" behavior of the adult storks (7). Nevertheless, other authors state that parental infanticide in white storks may be related to the benefit/cost ratio of brood raising (20). The latter did not examine parasitization in the affected chicks. The number of confirmed victims of this behavior in this study (n = 3) is too low to confirm the hypothesis of involvement of chaunocephalosis in this behavior. However, it could be of interest to also address parasitization by C. ferox in addition to other parameters in field studies."Thompsma (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This material on trematodes allows us to make a para on things that live in the storks' GI system, which gives the section some shape now (nest/GI/external paras...just a problem of where to place diseases). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It would be better not to have viral infections (virology) under the parasitology section. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless we rename the section "parasites and diseases (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Parasites and diseases would make more sense, given that West Nile is mentioned.Thompsma (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of the creatures featuring in this paragraph are parasites that live on the bird, and others are creatures that live in the nest structure. Are the creatures that live in the nest parasites, saprophytes, neighbours, or something else? Snowman (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Depends - one could call them commensals I guess, but I think the standard view is that they are parasites, and that the immediate vicinity counts in a way as being "on" the bird for definition purposes. Snowman, are you right with "-and diseases" to the heading? It seems the best place to discuss diseases due to the overlap and similarity in content. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Are the birds that make small nests in the storks large nest also parasites? If "parasites" remains in the heading would these smaller nesting birds be included. Snowman (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The WP Bird project main page does not help here, so it is up to the editors to come up with the best sub-heading name. A quick fix for the sub-heading will suffice temporarily and, in my view, certainly get it through GA. What about "Infestations and infections"? perhaps this is what the section is about. Snowman (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
There are so many different kinds of relationships, commensalism, symbiosis, parasitism, mutualism, and competition to name the main categories. It is very difficult to sort out experimentally to which category a relationship between host and associate may be classed, so we shouldn't try to solve the problem herein. These categories are broadly covered under the heading of coevolution; note, however, the wiki article to coevolution is in terrible shape and I wouldn't treat it as a reliable source at this point. Perhaps coevolutionary ecology could serve as an appropriate heading?Thompsma (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • How to the creatures living in a stork's nest cope with winter? Snowman (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I would expect that they pupate or hibernate, but I don't have a reference to back up the claim.Thompsma (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. One article mentions how the presence of a bird regulates the temperature and provides nutrients, but doesn't discuss what happens over the winter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Or the small creatures could die after laying eggs, which hatch the following spring/summer. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
That could be true too - I have no idea about the longevity of mites. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Presumably, bird flu in storks is an omission. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
? - have you heard of some specific association somewhere? I am not sure why you are bringing this up otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Migrating birds in general are thought to be a low risk for transmitting bird flu to farm birds. It might be interesting for the article to include any known incidence of bird flu or the absence of reports of bird flu in White Storks; however, I have re-considered and I think it is rather small print to influence GA. You might include it if you come across it, perhaps for a future FA. Snowman (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like there has been investigation into this - I note this, I wonder if anything came of it. I also note this, which suggests we'd better be careful and hopefully get secondary sources one way or the other before adding material. This has one record of one dead stork in 2006. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I would expect the incidence of West Nile virus in White Storks would be very low or negligible. The article should provide the reader some indication of the incidence of West Nile virus in storks, because is is such a serious illness for humans, and there needs to be context. I associate West Nile virus with primates in jungles, with occasional transmission to humans probably via bush meat. I have never heard of a bird transmitting West Nile virus to a human. Context for encephalitis also missing. I think that context for both these diseases is important to prevent any potential misunderstanding of these serious diseases. Alternately, I think these diseases without context should be deleted from the article. Perhaps, no primary sources is relevant here as for WP Med. Snowman (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile, I have deleted "It is susceptible to West Nile virus[95] and equine encephalitis.[96]" which, I think, is potentially misleading without context. Attributing birds with deadly disease need care and accuracy. I would be happy to see it added back with context and careful attention to detail. However, I think omission of this rather small print would not influence GA, and it would need to be written with proper context, if it is to included in a GA or FA. Snowman (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Certainly I think some common sense applies, and I tend to agree that the statements as such don't add anything meaningful. I'll see if the fulltext offers any more info that is worth adding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The Polish 2008 paper shows they tested 56 storks and got seropositive results with 3 juvenile white storks from a wildlife refuge. There is discussion that the antibodies are not maternal hence the birds must have been exposed. There is discussion about storks as they are common in Poland and migrate through the middle east and Africa (the paper does mention this paper which looks more significant. Although the conclusion of the first paper is "Our study has not confirmed with 100% certainty the circulation of WNV in Poland, but the results show tangible traces of seropositivity that demand verification.", I do wonder if the second (Israel) paper is worth discussing. Following WP:Med guidelines, we veer "no", but then this is a Review paper (hence secondary source) which does so, and hence I am inclined to digest the fulltexts of these over the next day or so and add. It is late here and I will look into the other disease tomorrow. The first Israeli paper is also covered in this overview, so looks to be quite significant. The Equine Encephalitis paper is from 1940 and only mentions the stork was tested and is susceptible, so I am tempted to leave it out. Nothing much is turning up on google search Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Update - I added a paragraph on west nile virus- it looks too significant to be overlooked, and it concludes with the two Review Articles - the Stork event in Eilat features prominently in several articles, so I wrote about it and referenced it here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The new text in the article looks fine. I am surprised that WNV was found in storks brains, which can only mean that infective viral particles were found. Of course, "seropositive storks" just means that they have had contact with WNV (assuming the tests used in the research were specific) and this is not an indicator for continuing presence of the virus. Would it be correct to say that these storks had immunity to WNV? Using the word "immunity" might be a clearer way to phrase it in the article providing the antibodies are protective. I guess that their evolution has been influenced by WNV, and I would be surprised if the anti-WNV antibodies were not protective. Snowman (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Was there any indications in the papers that storks have anything like IgG or IgM? I might look at the papers you have listed that are available, but not today. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The israeli dead storks had virus isolated from their brains, which was then inoculated into mice and they got a serious case of WNV. Subsequent storks tested in Israel in 199 and 2000 had positive serology (i.e. antibodies not virus), as did 3 storks in Poland - the Polish paper is cautious in their interpretation to describe it as exposure. One of the review papers also mentions birds in northern Germany testing positive as well. I will double check about which type of antibodies but I must have missed it first scan. It was late and I was tired. I will recheck. The Polish paper discusses implications of storks carrying WNV, but I was unsure of how much detail to go into in this section and how large to make it, given the size of the article. My impression is that 1-4 more sentences would give a more accurate picture, given the seriousness of WNV I doubt this would be undue weight, but I will see what others think (i.e. is what we have suffiicient given the size of the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think that too much detail could be superfluous, since the West Nile virus article is quite good. However, I am intrigued about what you might add. I was just reading about American Robins and other birds spreading WNV in USA, where there were about 500 identified human cases per year, and an epidemic in south Europe. It seems that WNV is more important than I had thought; although, not in the UK, since mosquitoes are not an infection hazard here. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision to the sub-headings[edit]

  • The current subheadings are as follows:
  • 1 Taxonomy and etymology
  • 2 Description
    • 2.1 Similar species
    • 2.2 Voice
  • 3 Habitat and distribution
  • 4 Behaviour
    • 4.1 Feeding
    • 4.2 Breeding
  • 5 Parasites
  • 6 Conservation and population

*I would like to propose the following:

  • 1 Description
  • 2 Taxonomy and evolution
  • 3 Ecology
    • 3.1 Distribution
      • 3.1.1 Habitat
      • 3.1.2 Migration
    • 3.2 Behaviour
    • 3.3 Feeding
    • 3.4 Breeding
    • 3.5 Parasitology
  • 4 Conservation Status
  • The proposed sub-heading organization may help with the flow and content. Feedback is welcome.Thompsma (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I was one of the prime movers originally in placing taxonomy above description. My motive was that the description section is often the place where one most wants to place images, but it often has the taxobox jutting down into it (hence making it hard to put images there). Also, the taxonomy section defines what the organism is and who discovered it etc. before the description section describes it. We also have a lead which touches on what the animal looks like before we hit the text anyway. An encompassing ecology section is logically not a bad idea, but laid out above makes for a rather large megasection compared with other sections in hte article. Still...anyway, I've been juggling a bit and now have some time to focus on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking that science usually begins with observation and descriptions and then moves onto explanations, such as taxonomic and evolutionary organization. In my mind a description defines what the organism is and taxonomy defines how its descriptive parts fit and relate into the biological hierarchy including the name of the discoverer / person who named it. Moreover, it is appears more common in the featured articles to see description preceding taxonomy (e.g., Russet Sparrow, Eurasian Tree Sparrow), but some articles have gone the other route (e.g., Northern Bald Ibis). I am open to switching the order. Ecology is a large section, but all those things are logical sub-sets of ecology. However, browsing some of the other featured articles I see it is common to put 'Distribution and habitat' into a separate section that precedes 'Behaviour and ecology', so this might be an option. In my mind, however, distribution and habitat is part of ecology - but I'm flexible. My main motivation for suggesting this is to bring the section on parasitology into the fold, which currently sticks out as a very small section. Perhaps we could include predators in with parasites? This might actually be better suited to the main discussion page, but I felt it was worth bringing up in the review, because the style and flow of the article seems to be a bit off.Thompsma (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that some users sometimes put the taxonomy heading before the description heading to avoid having text between the taxobox on the right and the image on the left; however, there is plenty of room for images on this page. To me, I think the description would be better above taxonomy on this page providing one line was added to the description section to introduce the two subspecies. The number of subspecies here is quite short and so there is not a long bulleted subspecies list where a left placed image is best avoided. In any event, the two-subspecies bulleted list here might go better in a table, which might need some clearance below the taxobox. Snowman (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(getting off topic but I think it's a valid point) we now have all sorts of biology articles alternating between the two sections as to which comes first. Personally, I am not happy with the idea that this is so. I must admit, since folks are using wider screens these days my argument about placement is not as strong as it was three years ago. Shall we try and discuss across the biology subjects to get some consensus? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
@Casliber, posting to discuss across the biology subjects might be an option, but for now I think that we could save time and be bold. I've been clicking through the featured article animals and see that I was wrong, taxonomy seems to occur first in the majority of articles. I'm fine using the format that is suggested in the Article sections here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles; personally, I object to habitat being separated from ecology, but it is probably better to follow the lead in this matter. In the present format of this article I don't like how 2.1 Similar species and 2.2 Voice are organized - why would voice be more important than colour, for example? Either we decide to extend the sub-heading list (such as, Colouration, Anatomy (or Morphology), Similar Species, Voice) or we simplify and just go with Description as a main sub-heading. Most articles just give a description and no sub-headings - so this would be the preferred route. Therefore, I will revise my proposal to the following:
Seems fine to me to have either Taxonomy or Description first—what I think matters is that these go near the top, as they, in different ways, define the subject of an organism article. —innotata 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. Taxonomy and evolution
  • 2. Description
  • 3. Distribution and habitat
    • 3.1 Migration
  • 4. Behaviour and ecology
    • 4.1 Breeding
    • 4.2 Food and feeding
    • 4.3 Parasites and predators
  • 5. Conservation
  • 6. Cultural associations

Does this seem appropriate?Thompsma (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Seems good, except probably that parasites and predators should probably be two sections. For parrot species with several subspecies, I sometimes put the taxonomy before the description so that the taxa are described early and give a better basis for the following description section. Snowman (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me - Thompsma, can I ask you to strike through queries you're satified with as this page is quite large now, just trying to keep track of things and I have some more time to devote to this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I think this review page is large, because fixes are needed almost everywhere. It seems that the collaboration of article editors has produced a patchwork of styles of writing. I found it interesting working on images for the article. Snowman (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Calisber...thanks for the tip. Will try that approach. Thompsma (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Please remember to sign. Signing after each section or paragraph can also be helpful, where it is likely that portions of a long edit could become detached by other peoples writing between your blocks of text to comment the block of text directly above. Snowman (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, put that in late last night and forgot to sign in. I always come back to check and fix my mistakes.Thompsma (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll make note of this proposal in the main discussion page as well. I'm hoping that someone will take the lead here and re-organize the article into these headings. It will make the rest of the review process easier to handle. The article contains lots of good information, but until the organization is dealt with it will be difficult to complete the review.Thompsma (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have rejigged. The reason why voice is often a subheading is the first part often details plumage - still I can live with it all being one. Need to read the parasites bit now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There is a limit to sub-heading reorganisation and the changes listed above may to too much too soon. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles and see level three heading on "Article sections". I am generally in favour of improvements to page organisation and tailoring headings for a particular topic, but this GA review may be the wrong forum for a revolution in bird article organisation. Meanwhile, perhaps page organisation here should keep broadly in-line with the rest of WP bird articles and according to the WP Birds main page. It is imperative that articles look similar across the Wikipedia, so I suggest being conservative and respect for the current WP bird guidelines on page sub-headings. Of course, in the future bird pages may need an alternative organisation according to proposals on guidelines that have consensus agreement. Snowman (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The list with "Ecology" and level four heading is not according to WP Bird guidelines. Snowman (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio, I consulted "Article sections" from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles - you can see that I did this just prior to the proposed organization stcuture as part of my pitch. The more recent proposal (I blanked out the old one with Ecology and four sub-headings) is what should be discussed. It seems like you've gone off track here and it has made this bit of discussion confusing. I also stated above that articles should look similar across wikipedia. Let's try to keep the discussion in focus. It seems that most agree with the proposed heading structure, but there is a problem with "Parasites and predators" - should it be two sections, one section, or some people have noted that this section also includes commensals and diseases so the title is wrong. Hence, I suggested the title "Coevolutionary ecology" (see above), but I'm not sure how popular that mouthful will be? The entire heading structure still needs to be changed in the article.:Thompsma (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been discussing the headings without going of track and I have not made the discussion more confusing than it need be, so please withdraw these allegations. 12:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the previous post was from Snowman??? Please don't take offense, this is just an observation and if you read through your post once again you will see that you were referring to the first proposal that had since been crossed out. I consulted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles for the second proposal and that is why it is in agreement with the WP bird guidelines for sub-headings, which is what made me clue in to the fact that you are referring to the older proposal that is off the table. In the second instance you write "The list with "Ecology" and level four heading is not according to WP Bird guidelines" - but the latest proposal fixed this problem and does not have a level four heading. Hence, this was my point about staying on focus here. I was curious why you had essentially restated what I had said above and referred to the proposal that had been crossed out - I'm sure it is an honest mistake and it is not a big deal. It was just confusing. If you could delete the posts or explain further, it will help us keep on track. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No. I wrote about the first list, after you put the wrong list on the articles talk page, so I thought you were going with the first list at that time. You have admitted that you made mistakes on the articles talk page, and I appreciate that you have apologised for that error there; see your apology on article's talk page. I note that you are on your third headings revision on this GA1 and only one of these is crossed out currently. I really think it would be helpful if you would withdraw the allegations that you have made about me. Snowman (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to keep going back over this. This is such a small matter that it doesn't require a lengthy discussion. There are no allegations or negative connotations being made here Snowman, the logical thread of discussion goes in order from top to bottom. I have attempted to make sense out of the juxtaposition of posts and requested that you assist in helping to keep this on focus - I'm not looking for a debate and will not enter into one, so it is best to drop the negativity and think positively in here. I'm here to review/edit and so let's move on to the important stuff and get this article working. You have made some excellent suggestions and have been a big help, but in this instance there is some confusion. All I'm asking is for you to assist in resolving the confusion to help the editorial move along. You have made it clear that you were confused by the mistake I made in the main article discussion page - so I'll accept this, but there are no 'allegations' being made here, just an honest attempt at clarification.Thompsma (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You said about me; "It seems like you've gone off track here and it has made this bit of discussion confusing." in this block of text. The sentiment in your comment above in this block of text; "You have made it clear that you were confused by the mistake I made in the main article discussion page - so I'll accept this," appears to me more realistic to me, so for me the incident is resolved. Snowman (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Great to hear Snowman - would hate to lose you, you've provided some great insight and assistance - so it is good that we get along. Too often Wikipedian posts lead to silly disputes that would not exist in real life where people can communicate more effectively with body language and face-to-face observation.Thompsma (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"Coevolutionary ecology" is a good choice in one respect, as it most accurately encapsulates the material, nevertheless is a mouthful and I have not seen the term used. If the paper on mesostigmatic mites describes them as mutualists, we can call the heading Parasites, mutualists and diseases. Predators are not in here currently. On maybe just Relationships with other organisms....?Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with Parasites, mutualists and diseases - sounds good.Thompsma (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks fine, though "Cultural associations" sounds a bit odd to me. —innotata 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
At first I thought so as well, but it has been used before and it aptly describes what the section is about - so I think it's okay.Thompsma (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The last list of headings (above) features "ecology" in a fashion not regularly used on WP Bird pages. It seems to me "ecology" would be expected to include conservation. The actual article sub-headings are not according to the above list; however, the actual article headings have had a number of changes and some minor changes might still be needed. What are the remaining unresolved issues (if any) with the sub-headings? Snowman (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have re-instated the "voice" section and renamed it "Communication". It is clearly wrong to have communication is the description section. Keep sections realistic. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
okay, moved to behaviour Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The above list is wrong "Behaviour and ecology" should include "conservation". I have re-instated a "Behaviour" section without ecology, because if ecology was included as a section heading the section should have included conservation. I have made the headings more realistic again. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • What about an "Identification" level 3 sub-section for the last paragraph of the description section? Snowman (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Early on, folks were using Identification instead of description as a heading. I think similar species is more applicable to what the para discusses, but wondered whether a subheading was needed at all...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Several ways seems acceptable, and it probably does not matter for GA. For clarity a level three sub-heading might help. Snowman (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
reinstated then Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision to the sub-headings, Part II - work that remains[edit]

  • I'm starting a new section on this, because it is difficult to follow the progression above. Snowman asked what work remains to be done, so I will re-evaluate to see where we have gone and were we need to go. The current structure is as follows:Thompsma (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 1 Taxonomy and etymology
  • 2 Description
    • 2.1 Similar species
  • 3 Distribution and habitat
    • 3.1 Migration
  • 4 Behaviour
    • 4.1 Communication
    • 4.2 Feeding
    • 4.3 Breeding
  • 5 Parasites and diseases
  • 6 Conservation and population
  • 7 Cultural associations

The proposed structure (after input above) is as follows:

  • 1. Taxonomy and evolution
  • 2. Description
  • 3. Distribution and habitat
    • 3.1 Migration
  • 4. Behaviour and ecology
    • 4.1 Breeding
    • 4.2 Food and feeding
    • 4.3 Parasites, mutualists, and diseases
  • 5. Conservation
  • 6. Cultural associations
  • Snowman suggested that conservation should go under ecology, and technically I concur. However, some of the featured articles on birds isolate conservation as its own sub-heading (e.g., Rufous-crowned Sparrow, Mourning Dove, and Red-billed_Chough), but most featured bird articles do conform to Snowman's statement above, that suggests: "The last list of headings (above) features "ecology" in a fashion not regularly used on WP Bird pages.". Therefore, the simple solution might be to take ecology out of the heading and just go with behaviour as is often done, but then we run into the problem that this heading does not encompass 'Parasites, mutualists, and diseases'. I am satisfied with 'Conservation' as its own sub-heading that sits outside of 'Behaviour and ecology', because it is considered a separate discipline by some. Someone (Innotata) did not like the heading 'Cultural associations' and I kinda agree - 'Relationship with humans' is more common in featured bird articles and this might be a better title.Thompsma (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I see unresolved discussion points here. What I meant to say was that; "ecology" should not feature in a heading; "conservation" should have its own heading (although conservation is a sub-set of ecology). Snowman (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it would be preferable not to have "ecology" feature in the headings, because it is such a vague expansive term. Snowman (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • On bird pages the more normal style is that the "Parasites" section is outside higher headings (and outside the "Behaviour" section). Snowman (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Ecology is about the bird in relation to its environment, so this includes conservation. Nevertheless, "Conservation" can have its own level 2 heading. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I am happy with the sections as they are currently set out on the page as below with a heading of "Behaviour" and not "Behaviour and ecology". I do not see why the behaviour section should be made any more complicated or any longer. Snowman (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "mutualists": jargon. Snowman (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hence, the following remains:
  1. 'Taxonomy and etymology' needs to be changed to 'Taxonomy and evolution'.
  2. 'Parasites and diseases' needs to be changed to 'Parasites, mutualists, and diseases' and nested within 'Behaviour and ecology'.
  3. 'Conservation and population' needs to be truncated to 'Conservation' - I will be reviewing that section next with input on how to fix the population aspect.
  4. 'Cultural associations' may be changed too 'Relationship with humans'
  • Please feel free to comment if you feel that these changes are unreasonable or require a further tweak. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
1 Taxonomy and evolution
2 Description
  * 2.1 Similar species
3 Distribution and habitat
  * 3.1 Migration
4 Behaviour
  * 4.1 Communication
  * 4.2 Feeding
  * 4.3 Breeding
5 Parasites and diseases
6 Conservation and population
7 Cultural associations          ...... by Snowman 22:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In-the-round, I am happy with the actual heading structure of the article now - the structure in the box above. Once the basic heading structure is agreed, then only relativity minor changes around this grand structure are needed. We can discuss spitting the "Conservation and population" section or keeping it when this section is reviewed, and also we can discuss the exact wording of the "Culture" section heading and the "Parasites and diseases" section heading later in this GA1. Similarly, other relativity minor issues on page organisation and headings can be discussed as issues arise. Please indicate support or objections for this plan. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good Snowman - I concur with all your points made above. Thanks. 'I'm neutral on 'Cultural associations' vs. 'Relationship with humans' I would suggest, however, to get rid of population after conservation - just title it 'Conservation'. Conservation also deals with populations - so this is superfluous.Thompsma (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Migration[edit]

  • I am adding this editorial section on migration since it is a new sub-heading.Thompsma (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Nothing is said about the timing of migration. This article[51] (cited in the main White Stork article), states the following: "In Europe, White Storks return from the wintering areas in Africa from late March to aprial. The exact date varies with geography and weather conditions. After breeding, storks leave their nesting areas during August or September and return to Africa."Thompsma (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
good points. will read and added when I get an undisturbed segment of time... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This[52] is an important citation with information that should be included in this section.Thompsma (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
added that one. Agree interesting, pertinent general material can be brief Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This section will have lots of potential overlap with distribution. It will require some skill to keep the topic on focus and to tease out the aspects that pertain to migration vs. distribution - unless people decide to move ahead with the proposed sub-heading organization (see above), where migration will be included as a sub-heading of distribution. Thought I should put this reminder in here, because I'm having a tough time of this myself. Hopefully someone will take the lead on the organization so that I can complete this part of the review. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "The flocks of raptors, storks and Great White Pelicans can stretch for 200 km (125 mi)": is this a line, a front, or a diameter? Snowman (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd presume it means length not width. I'll have more to say when I read this section a bit more closely Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • To bring up another point for discussion on page organisation with arises here. Is migration a type of behaviour? ... Should migration be in the "Behaviour" section? Snowman (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
True - one could also see it as a part of distribution...and if so then we have a more balanced set of headings and subheadings. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it depends on how it is written and integrated. Migration certainly adds to the distribution, but it is also an important part of their behaviour. If you are talking about migration routes in a geographic context, it would seem more applicable in distribution. If you are talking about migration in context of timing, distance, flight, mating, nesting, and other related behaviours, it would go into the behavioural section.Thompsma (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There is an un-sourced claim under this flickr image that says in French that after Storks are caged for three years they do not migrate. Is there any truth in this that can be added to the article? I expect European resident birds must be supplied with supplementary food in the winter. Snowman (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen anything like that in the articles I have read (but admit I wasn't specifically looking). I haven't seen anything about birds overwintering in colder areas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservation and population[edit]

  • I suggest that population be dropped from this sub-heading.Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
yeah, I have no problem with that. Discussing population is a given when discussing conservation. Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • The IUCN threatened list[53] has information on the white stork that could be included.Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The first and last paragraphs should be switched around. The last paragraph reads more like an introductory paragraph.Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought combining them helped, and gave it a chronological flow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The first sentence should state something about the current versus the historical status of this species. In 1988 it was near threatened and now it is a least concern. What sort of conservation measures were implemented or changes that contributed to this change?Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
reintriductions and help with nesting and augmenting feeding. Will see how to tweak Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

*Could the census be put into a table format? It is very interesting information, but very boring to read like a laundry list. It might even be simple to do a pie chart?Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The text has been changed enough that this problem has gone away.Thompsma (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "In the 1980s, the White Stork population..." This sentence should be the start of a new paragraph.Thompsma (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Now that this has been set to a new paragraph it needs a topic sentence. What makes this paragraph distinct from the first? The theme is consistent with the first paragraph - declines and reintroductions - the only difference is that it is in a different geographic area. Create a topic sentence for each paragraph.Thompsma (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Conservation efforts there, particularly by the Association for the Protection and Reintroduction of Storks in Alsace and Lorraine, have successfully increased the population of birds to 270 pairs." - change to: "Conservation efforts successfully increased the population of birds to 270 pairs largely due to the actions of the Association for the Protection and Reintroduction of Storks in Alsace and Lorraine."Thompsma (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Some places can be wikilinked in this section (e.g., many of the geographic locations - Alsace (and other place names that have yet to be linked), conservation).Thompsma (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
decided to stick with those smaller than "country". Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The image on air thermals should be moved above to the section on migration.Thompsma (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Other web resources are available for this section, possible places include [54], [55] - perhaps these should go into the external links section?Thompsma (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
figured the sweden one was worth a mention (but not more as it seems to not be hugely successful). First link is dead to me for the time being. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the one was a little obscure, but I thought it was worth looking into. There are so many links and this was the general message. It might be worth while to spend a bit of time searching and linking to some of the more important sites. Other examples: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]Thompsma (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am looking at them while mindful of the Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked segment, particularly category 3, i..e a further level of encyclopedic detail or copyright material that adds to understanding of the article. I've looked at the first two, neither of which fall in this category. Interesting reading. WIll update as I double check. I am not seeing anything in them aboveand beyond what we already have really, apart from the Lithuanian program which I think we should incorporate somewhere, maybe as a sentence or two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The following paper titled "Is the reintroduced white stork (Ciconia ciconia) population in Switzerland self-sustainable?"[64] has information that is very relevant to this section. This paper[65] and this paper[66] could be accessed as well. Thompsma (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
''first one's two of three in now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This document[67] from Bird Life International has some interesting and relevant information. This document [68] by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation may also be pertinent.Thompsma (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
first one in, second one as well but might read again for more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is duplication of zoo-bird introductions in the last paragraph of this section. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "The White Stork benefited from human activities ..."; seems a bit vague. I presume that it is meant to imply that the population of storks increased. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy and evolution[edit]

  • We've made great progress and this review is almost complete - keep up the good work!!! I returned to this renamed section and wanted to make a suggestion on the organization. The first paragraph in this section should go at the end. The use of author names, such as "D. Scott Wood had proposed a closer affinity..." is a little unconventional, but it might be fine. These sentences can be expressed in the same way using the present tense (i.e., 'had' = past tense) and possibly reworded so that the author information isn't duplicated in the text and in the citation.Thompsma (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, switching paras works for me. His view on stork relations is unconventional AFAICT. Made it perfect tense. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify - it isn't the views of the author that I was calling attention too, it is the practice of stating the name of the author in the sentence followed by a reference to the author. Newspaper articles give names of people being interviewed. However, most encyclopedia's usually give the facts without naming the person who published the fact in the text - unless the author has some kind of historical significance in this regard. It might be more appropriate to say: "A comprehensive review of behavioural and morphological traits, however, identified a closer affinity..." - However, I read the paper by Wood and the information is incorrect. Wood does not propose a closer relationship to the Black Stork (Ciconia nigra), but provides a number of evolutionary phenograms comparing behavioural and morphological traits. Some of the phenograms support the sister relationship with the Maguari Stork (Ciconia maguari) and nowhere does Wood propose a final conclusion on this matter. Hence, it could be worded to say that the morphological and behavioural analysis leaves this relationship unresolved.Thompsma (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Weird... read that paper early on and then couldn't reaccess it when I tweaked the section. Thanks for reading. If it is that inconclusive I think it is better removed, which I will do presently Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you could just say that morphological and behavioural traits are ambiguous about Ciconia nigra versus C. maguari as the closet living relative? Moreover, the cytochrome b analysis (Slikas, Beth (1997). "Phylogeny of the Avian Family Ciconiidae (Storks) Based on Cytochrome b Sequences and DNA–DNA Hybridization Distances". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 8 (3): 275–300. ) did not 'confirm' the sister relationship with Ciconia maguari. That study looked at both cyt b and DNA-DNA hybrid distances. In fact, the combinable-component consensus tree (Figure 8) in that paper shows C. boyciana as the immediate sister group to C. maguari with those two (C. ciconia x C. boyciana) forming a nested sister group to C. maguari. Hence, it could be stated that C. maguari, C. nigra, C. boyciana are all close evolutionary contenders for the closest living relative based on morphology, behaviour, and genetic traits. It is important to remember that cyt b does not 'confirm' relationships, it is a gene that sits on the maternally inherited mitochondrial genome that can follow independent pathways from the nuclear genome (gene trees and species trees are not the same[69]). The DNA-DNA hybridization method is based on the nuclear genome, but once again - it is a technique that cannot confirm - it is just inferential for testing competing phylogenetic hypotheses.Thompsma (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, nigra certainly seems to be unclear in its relations. I just logged on quickyl and have to run. Will get to this later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted. Excuse me for only having a smattering of biochemistry that is more mainstream and metabolic, than zoology slanted. Yes, mitochondria are in the cytoplasm of the ova, and they are passed into the zygote. The chromosomes are transformed in meioses. I copy-edited this section from the abstract (without access to the full paper). Unfortunately, I was working from the text of the wiki article that was not a good representation of the research paper, and I unwittingly perpetuated errors. I thought I was working with text that was badly written, but not misleading. Now, in the light of a more complete interpretation of the paper above, I have made a more general statement in the article, but I can not provide a more detailed synopsis without access to the full paper. For me, I am not inspired with confidence in any article on finding that the facts are not extracted from the sources properly. I guess that a lot more sources will need to be checked in this article. Snowman (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I think a relevant phylogeny/evolutionary tree would be well placed on the Ciconia genus wiki article. It would be handy to have an expanded genus page to wikilink from the White Stork page. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Good work Snowman! C. nigra might also be mentioned: "The White Stork's closest relatives are the larger black-billed Oriental White Stork (Ciconia boyciana) of East Asia, which was formerly classified as a subspecies of the White Stork,[7], the Maguari Stork (C. maguari) of South America, and the widely distributed species of Black Stork (C. nigra)." - some of the evolutionary trees in those papers show a close affinity of the Black Stork and this is also mentioned on the main Black Stork page. Otherwise, I like the wording you have plugged in - it is a more accurate representation of the science and literature.Thompsma (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Snowman I can fetch and email some fulltexts if you want. I can't attach them to a 'email user' from the wikipedia user page but if you email me first I can attach an article to the reply. Agree about a clade on the genus page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
PS: The paper by Dykes and Alexander which focuses on the finds on Rusinga Island also mentions in hte body of the text on page 2 - "Further material indistinguishable from the extant White Stork, Ciconia ciconia, is also known from the Middle Miocene of Maboko Island (Andrews et al., 1981)." - however I was unable to find anything on that paper at all, so this as asummary source has to be hte reference point for it., so be careful before making assumptions from the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"Middle Miocene beds estimated to be 12–10.5 mya of Maboko Island have yielded further remains." This is from (Andrews et al., 1981), but sourced from (Dykes et al 2008). Presumably, there are pitfalls in sourcing material this way. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes Snowman there are pitfalls and unfortunately no easy answers - I looked for and was unable to find Andrews 81, not even an abstract to shed light on it, hence all I have is the mention in Dykes. So options are to take Dyke's word for it (presuming that Dykes et al. have resarched material properly and are very familiar with published content) or omit altogether. I am unhappy about the latter as to me it is less accurate than the former if I assume that the Andrews material is valid. Maybe the best is a nested reference to Andrews within Dykes (?). Do you guys think we should omit it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The paper has a suitable phrase for the whole lot; "Ciconia ciconia are documented from other Miocene sites across the region". The whole lot in the article (including the humerous fossil) could say; "Ciconia ciconia fossils have been found in various Miocene sites in Kenya.", but I think that this might be an incomplete story. This is the disadvantage of using a primary source where the discussion is only relevant to the findings of the paper in Kenya. Where else were fossils found? ? Uganda, ?South Africa? I am not even sure if these are the earliest White Stork fossils. What about European or Asian Fossils? Snowman (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It gets frustrating when certain sources prove elusive the Boles article which is focussed on Australia, mentions 3 ciconia species have quaternary fossil records, with this: Brodkorb, P., 1963. Catalogue of fossil birds. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 7: 179–293. as the source for that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have access to the Brodkorb (1963) publication[70] and it has nothing on Ciconia ciconia. I just has a listing for the following information (Page 289): Ciconia gaudryi Lower Pliocene Ciconia maltha jabiru? weillsi Middle Pleistocene to Upper Pleistocene. I tried to track down Andrews et al., 1981 and our library does not have this. I think it is an acceptable practice to cite from a paper that cites another source if the paper being cited is peer-reviewed. The other option is to write Andrews directly (http://www.blandfordtownmuseum.org/Contact.htm) and ask for him to send a reprint. He might be kind enough to e-mail a pdf if he is tech savvy enough - he is still on the editorial board for Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution and other journals[71], so he could probably do this.Thompsma (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a great lead, thanks for that. and thanks for clarifying the Brodkorb reference. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I did wonder why the Black Stork was not listed as a closest relative, and I thought about adding it on, but I do not have the obvious source. I also wondered which of the genus were not closest relatives. Someone who knows the papers better than me should add it. I do not want the paper particularly, because reading it will take up time that I could have to work on images. Snowman (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The DNA hybridization tree in the Slikas (1997) paper shows the Black Stork as the closest sister group to C. ciconia x maguari. The Black Stork does not appear as an immediate sister group to the White Stork, but it does pop in and out of the relationship between maguari, nigra, and boyciana in the various behavioural and genetic trees. I would go and change the text - but I'm trying to refrain from doing so as the reviewer. On a genus level analysis, a classic paper written by John Avise found a close relationship with New World vultures and storks (see [72]).Thompsma (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thompsma, standards have changed over the past couple of years - it is okay for reviewers to make changes as they go based on the review. I am happy for folks to do so - this is more conducive to collaborative editing than strict editor/reviewer roles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Avise paper is from 1994. This is a research paper, a primary source for the wiki. In general the wiki prefers reviews or books (secondary sources) from a reliability point of view. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that this phylogeny could be written in detail on the genus page, so that details can be brief here. Would you be happy to edit the genus page? Snowman (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cultural associations[edit]

  • "The White Stork is a large and conspicuous bird, often nesting close to humans, and highly beneficial to farmers because its diet includes many pest species like grasshoppers and rodents; it is unsurprising that it has given rise to many, generally favourable, legends." - The start of this sentence duplicates information that was already given under description - that the stork is a large bird. Perhaps it could start out by saying, "Due to its large size and nesting behaviour that is close to human settlements and on rooftops, the White Stork has an imposing presence that has had an affect on human culture."Thompsma (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
yep. nice rewrite and I have used it or something similar. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "In Greek and Roman mythology storks were considered models of parental devotion..." Write in the present tense, it reads better: "Greek and Roman mythology portrays storks as a model of parental devotion..."Thompsma (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
ok. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "A belief was that storks cared for their aged parents, feeding them and even transporting them." - Once again, we are faced in this section with some poor sentence structure and organization. This is not an introductory sentence and it is grammatically challenged. A belief shared by whom?Thompsma (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "A Greek law called Pelargonia from pelargos for the stork required children to take care of their parents." - Please clarify how pelargos relates to the stork - is it the Greek word for stork? It is not clear.Thompsma (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is a Greek word meaning stork. Added. Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Storks have little fear of humans in places where they are not disturbed, and often nest on buildings in Europe." - Why do they only nest on buildings in Europe and not elsewhere? Of course - I understand that they do elsewhere, but this is why this sentence is a bit odd and it also builds upon redundant information from other places in the article. Make the sentences flow and create a logical paragraph structure with introductory sentences, bodies, and closing statements on a central theme.
In South Africa, they are not known to nest on buildings. And wintering storks at least in India will flush at considerable distance, which was why I added the qualifying "where they are not disturbed". Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow-up Shyamal - I was not aware that storks would not nest on rooftops in other areas. What about in Uzbekistan, northern Iran, Turkey etc?? I imagine that they would nest on buildings in these places?Thompsma (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
In Tashkent they are send to breed on power pylons. Little documented about north Africa but chances are that they do not nest on buildings there either. Shyamal (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "A long term study of stork nests and human births showed a correlation and this example is widely used in introductions to statistical analysis to demonstrate the difference between causality and correlation." - reword: "A classical study on stork nests and human births identified a false correlation on reproductive outcomes. This classical and mistaken study is widely used in introductory texts on statistical analysis to exemplify the difference between causality and correlation."Thompsma (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a paper that actually made this mistake? As far as I can see it is a made-up example using good data that is used in teaching - 1 and 2 Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Good follow up Shyamal! I was going to follow the citations that made this claim, but got lazy. Thanks. The first citation (Didelez, V (2007). "Statistical Causality". In Ostreng W. Consilience. Interdisciplinary communications. Centre for Advanced Study, Oslo. pp. 114–120. http://www.stats.bris.ac.uk/~maxvd/Consilience_Did.pdf.) states - "this example is attributed to Yule according to Neyman (1952); see also Höfer et al., 2004." I followed up on the Hofer paper [73] and don't know how to interpret it. Is it a joke?Thompsma (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is one of several classic statistician / statistics teacher joke examples. The data is sound and the correlation is correctly computed as well- there are a number of similar examples of spurious correlations caused by other underlying causes. The stork example is probably more politically acceptable than others like the one on church ministers and violent crimes. Shyamal (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The sentence should be modified to say that frivolous correlations with birth rates and White Stork populations is sometimes used to demonstrate that correlation does not mean causation in statistics.Thompsma (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
"frivolous" is not the right word. It is a spurious relationship between variables, probably due to several hidden confounding variables in this case. I have made the line more readable. The line may need incorporating into the paragraph better. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "The child-bringing myth has appeared in different forms in history." - this is an introductory sentence.Thompsma (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There should be a logical separation of structure - science, mythology, folklore, fables, and art could be possible cultural themes for paragraphs to center around.Thompsma (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "In modern times, rings and satellite transmitters are used in studies of their migration. Special leg rings are used, because there is a risk of accumulation of guano around rings from their habit of urohidrosis that can have a constricting effect and traumatise their legs." - These sentences are outta place - what do they have to do with cultural associations?Thompsma (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "In Slavic mythology and religion, it was believed that in spring and summer storks carry unborn souls from Iriy to Earth.[107] This belief still persist in the modern folk culture of many Slavic countries, in the simplified child story that "storks bring children into the world"." - Why is this sentence in a new paragraph when the previous paragraph talks about storks and babies? This serves as another example of the organizational structure that needs work.Thompsma (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have reorganised this section into paras (1) general/antiquity (2) nests/baby beliefs (3) sentence I can't figure out where to go (4) national symbolism. I need to sleep now and will massage prose and figure out how to reword some bits tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look later today - it gets really interesting. I am reading the 1972 paper by Margolis which is psychoanalytic, and also talks about stuff Freud has written as well. added Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

References and external links[edit]

  • I don't know what the wikipedia policy is for notes, footnotes, references, and bibliography. However, looking at featured articles I notice that the citations look a lot more crisp. It would be nice if someone could take the time to go through the article to trim and refine some of the citations. Let's make this look crisp.Thompsma (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm torn on that one - I was about to remove it but it does have some useful images...I'll leave it to consensusCasliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There are still a few inconsistencies in the citation formatting as mentioned earlier. For example:
  1. Lewis, Charlton Thomas; Kingery, Hugh Macmaster (1918). An Elementary Latin Dictionary. New York: American Book Company. p. 126. ISBN 0199102058.
  2. Ming Ma & Cai Dai (2002). "The fate of the White Stork (Ciconia ciconia asiatica) in Xinjiang, China". Abstract Volume. 23rd International Ornithological Congress, Beijing, August 11–17, 2002. p. 352.
  3. Franssen, F. F.; Hooimeijer, J; Blankenstein, B.; Houwers, D. J. (2000). "Giardiasis in a White Stork in The Netherlands" (abstract). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36 (4): 764–766. PMID 11085441
  4. J. Simpson, E. Weiner (eds), ed (1989). "Stork". Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-861186-2.

The first citation uses full names whereas the third & last citation use just initials. The second citation uses '&' while others do not. The final citation repeats 'ed.' and uses initials only rather than full names. At the end of this review these citation fixes will need to be completed for GA status.Thompsma (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

some of these are hard to find but am making progress... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier to just use initials??Thompsma (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. But I did so much already. I also feel it personalises the authors better :) Nearly done. I plan to go to the uni library on friday as I think there is a Dictionary of Palearctic birds and I will get some more specific secondary sourcing for behaviour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead[edit]

*"The White Stork eats a wide range of animal prey, including insects, reptiles, amphibians, fish, small mammals and small birds." - It is classified as a carnivore and crayfish are also an important part of the diet.Thompsma (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Once the rest of this article is fixed the lead sentence from each paragraph can be taken out and organized into a list. This list can then be used as a means to organize the structure of lead, pulling one or two important facts from each section to give the general overview. Until some of the other edits are completed it will be difficult to complete this part of the review, but we are well on our way to a good article.Thompsma (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Was going to wait until we'd sorted out the intro para to Behavour at least. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

*"It takes most of its food from the ground and from shallow water, though it sometimes plucks prey off low vegetation." - The wording for this was revised in the main article. The reference to low vegetation came from an article that studied the foraging behaviour and noted that storks prefer to forage in meadows where the vegetation is lower compared to sites where the vegetation is high. I don't remember reading that they pluck prey off the vegetation.Thompsma (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Images[edit]

*Are there too many images in this article? It looks a bit cluttered, but I have no specific suggestions to make other than making the images fit together like you can see in Common Blackbird, a featured bird article.Thompsma (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning on rationalising them once all the text was in have rejigged them a little. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we near a conclusion on this review? At 150kb, this might be the longest review I've seen, so clearly a lot of work has gone into this on both sides; hopefully nearly everything has been resolved by now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we are near the end. Thompsma hasn't edited in a few days and might be busy. I think we've done nearly everything he's suggested so i am sure he'll return soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If he's still gone on March 6, I'll take over the review, so I'll give him some time to return. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
ok, fine by me. Pretty sure he'll be cool with that too if/when he turns up afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Per the above, I will review this within the next 36 hours. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the remaining issues I found:

  • The subspecies note in the first section could probably be prosified, since it's only noting the two. If you've tried this already and it didn't look good, then nevermind.
In just about all bird FAs, I've gone with bulleted lists, so feel it clearly defines the divisions better. I try to get all the FAs to conform with each other as much as possible, and my feeling it is better bulleted as they are significant divisions (I worry they'd get lost in the prose otherwise...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "The nominate race of the White Stork" not sure what 'nominate race' means; probably a biology term that most would get, but if possible reword.
linked to subspecies#Nominate_subspecies. is a link enough? Or do you think a couple of adjectives'd help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are the only couple things I found; once those two are addressed I'll pass the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted on the bullets, and the link is fine. Since I have no other issues, I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thx (audible sigh of relief) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Bird article improvement programme[edit]

The 7th Basic Ornithology Course, Pune run by Ela Foundation and Abasaheb Garware College of Arts and Sciences has committed to improving bird articles on occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of Wikipedia. This is an experimental venture on behalf of the course. For more details about the project see this page. The edits of the Wikipedia article on White Stork by User:AshLin on 7th January from 17:53 to 18:26 have been carried out in conjunction with the Ornithology Course .

For any observations as regards the editing of White Stork by the course, please post on this page. Other queries may be put forth here.

AshLin (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have examined the Pande et al. reference and it does not identify the subspecies. Ali & Ripley -Handbook 2nd Ed and Rasmussen both indicate that both asiatica and nominate populations are involved with the former probably being more prominent in the past. Only two German ring recoveries are mentioned in the Handbook while Whitehead notes that he saw large flocks of up to 200 birds flying north through the Kurram Valley - which are unlikely to have been anything other than asiatica. Have made the changes accordingly. Shyamal (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiprojects[edit]

Why is this bird in WikiProject Egypt? According to the map the stork doesn't even have a population there. Plus, this means that every other country WikiProject in that area should be here. Focus (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It was added by a bot in 2009. No idea what it based that on, since other species that occur in the country don't show the project banner. You could check with someone from the project, I suppose... MeegsC | Talk 17:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that it is because the stork was a hieroglyph in ancient Egypt and was important to the ancient Egyptians. Perhaps this should be included in the article. I think it was written in the article. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yup, that's there in the Cultural associations section. Focus (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
But is it important enough? Many cultures have associations with animals, but they are rarely important. I added to that section on storks in Slavic mythology, but despite the brief mentions of various Slavic countries I'd not add this article to those wikiprojects. I'd support removing Egypt WikiProject from that page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I attended a lecture on Ethno-ornithology by Dr Suruchi Pande yesterday and a passing reference in the overview to the perergrine falcon and stork in Pharoanic culture were mentioned. Its obvious that storks extended to Egypt in antiquity and it formed part of their cultural symbolism. Anyway, if you want to remove a WikiProject Banner, I would recommend that you discuss it on their talk page for concurrence, as they may not realise that the banner deletion is taking place. AshLin (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I left them a note. Barring no objections, I suggest we remove this template in a week or so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Article re-organization[edit]

In the review pages I suggested that this article needs to be re-organized with the sub-headings to be more in tune with other animal articles that are featured on wikipedia. The following organization was proposed and generally accepted:

* 1 Description

  • 2 Taxonomy and evolution
  • 3 Ecology
    • 3.1 Distribution
      • 3.1.1 Habitat
      • 3.1.2 Migration
    • 3.2 Behaviour
    • 3.3 Feeding
    • 3.4 Breeding
    • 3.5 Parasitology
  • 4 Conservation Status

Is someone willing to take the lead on this? If not, I can do it - but it would be nice, as the reviewer, if I maintain arms length from making any significant contributions to the article that this would entail.Thompsma (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is already mostly in that structure, and anything further may be too much too soon. The Ecology section is not used like that on WP:Birds, and I am not keen on the level four headings on the listing above. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles and see level three heading on "Article sections". Snowman (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ooops...I copied the wrong list!!
  • 1. Taxonomy and evolution
  • 2. Description
  • 3. Distribution and habitat
    • 3.1 Migration
  • 4. Behaviour and ecology
    • 4.1 Breeding
    • 4.2 Food and feeding
    • 4.3 Parasites and predators
  • 5. Conservation
  • 6. Cultural associationsThompsma (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • What a mess that accidental wrong listing seems to be. The discussion above on sub-heading has been superseded by discussion in GA1. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes...sorry for the mistake. I wasn't sure if I should post this in both locations, because it is also of a more general nature to the structure and arrangement of the article.Thompsma (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox image[edit]

I was musing on this - unfortunately there is no clear front-runner as far as choice. I was thinking of an adult stork facing to the left (into the article) and showing the plumage clearly. I guess my preference is for the first one slightly over the third one, but not by much. It'd be good to find a better one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


I slightly prefer the third over the first. The third one has a less "busy" background - while I agree that the nest is a nice aesthetic touch, in this case it distracts the eye from the bird itself. Being taken in a zoo is perhaps a slight detriment, but I feel it's evened out by the fact that the first photo has a leg-tag on the bird - so neither one is exactly entirely "natural". As far as the second and fourth are concerned, the second suffers from being a head-on shot (images taken in profile or three-quarters are much better for identification when non-human animals are concerned) along with having a tag just like #1, negating whatever "in the wild" authenticity it may otherwise possess. The fourth is slightly out of focus, with somewhat distracting lighting (it has the "5PM on a summer evening and everything's turning yellow" look to it, along with the pretty but distracting dots of sun coming through what I assume to be gaps in the trees above) - there's really nothing offered in #4 that #3 doesn't do as good or better. #3 and #1 are top, with a sizable dropoff between those and #4, with #2 unfortunately last in my book. Badger Drink (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Number 3, I think. As Snowman pointed out (weeks ago, when it was in the article), number 1's wings may have been clipped, as the flight feathers don't appear to be full length. The presence of the nest isn't really a "bonus", since we have multiple nice shots of the nest. I agree with Badger Drink about numbers 2 and 4. And I agree with Casliber that it would be great to get a good shot taken in the wild! MeegsC | Talk 14:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the first is a little over-exposed, and while the composition is good (and the nest is a nice touch) the ruffled feathers aren't ideal. I think my preference is very slightly for the third, with the first second. The other two aren't really there as has already been said. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a definite preference for #3, so I've stuck that in. That image could do with a bit of a crop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that image 3 does not need cropping. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
It's borderline, but I could understand doing a bit of cropping - nothing too tight, but reducing some of the dead space on the left/right would devote maximum space to the bird when thumbnailed, and the distance between the top of the bird and top of the frame is about twice that as the bottom of the bird and the bottom of the frame. I'll give it a shot storkly- er, shortly. Badger Drink (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Cropped vs. Uncropped[edit]

As promised/threatened... notice how much more detail comes through in thumbnails, thanks to the cropping. I think a bit more can be shaved off the bottom (or a bit more left on at the top), but it'll have to wait for now. Badger Drink (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the cropping is a definite net positive, especially for a taxobox image. I thought the stork got a little lost in the uncropped version. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Wading" bird[edit]

I removed the qualifier "wading" from the lead because it is misleading. The storks do not wade much and the term "wading bird" on Wikipedia redirects to Wader, which the stork is not. Maias (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments[edit]

  • A comment on the lead - there is a large section on "threats", almost the entire third paragraph on the lead. It seems unbalanced, the species overall is not threatened, but this is not mentioned! Yes the species has some regional declines and suffers some human mortality, but it is not "threatened".
I have tried rejigging it, as I agree it looked like was threatened from how it was written.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Younger birds - wouldn't this be better merged with the overall description (which isn't long) and the bit about age moved to breeding? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I added material on breeding age and lifespan to the breeding section and renamed it "breeding and lifespan" - not ideal but seems to be the best place for it. Finding a good place for one or two sentences on longevity is always a problem I find... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Biologically speaking lifespan and breeding are treated as related as they are both aspects of life-history. I'm not sure the section needed renaming though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There is some redundancy about historical declines in Europe, which seems to be mentioned in the lead and under both distribution and conservation.
I agree it'd be nice to streamline here. Material in the lead by definition appears elsewhere in more detail in the article. This leaves us with trying to streamline the distribution and conservation sections. Looking at it, I am feeling a little uncertain how to proceed with this - I am tentatively thinking that paragraph 2 in the conservation section could be moved to the first paragraph of the distribution section - this might allow for a little streamlining. Is this what you had in mind? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Having had another look at it I think it is probably unnecessary to change anything there. Some minor, unobtrusive, redundancy may not be a bad thing as an article grows in size and takes longer to read. I do know what you mean about para 2 in Conservation - it is about demographics rather than strictly conservation - but it could go in either place. Two possibilities - switch the second and third paras in Conservation, and change the header to "Conservation and population" (or similar), or (as you posit) move the second to "Distribution". Then what... put a level 2 header in the expanded "Distribution" for "Habitat"? Or maybe just leave all as is; tweaking in one place can have seismic effects elsewhere. Maias (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe the Migration section could be upgraded to a first-level header - I know it is related to distribution but there are some quite distinct issues involved. Maias (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I can see the reasoning in that, although I do like articles to have a mix of level 1 and 2 headers. I'll bow to consensus to that as that is a pretty quick and easy fix. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Part of the reason for my suggestion was that it would also upgrade the level 3 headers (under Migration) to level 2, rather than leaving them as the only level 3 headers in the article. However, I do not think it makes a huge amount of difference either way. Maias (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Casliber asked me to drop by. The refs needs some tidying up. I've gone through the first column only, but suspect there will be similar issues with the second column that could be pre-emptively cleaned up. I'll be back with comments on the content later. Sasata (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #2 Holmiae = modern Stockholm
shoulda figgered that one... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #3 "&c Vol-ume" ce
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • web versions of print documents, and PDFs do not need retrieval dates
  • ref #6 (Simpson et al., 1989) needs page #
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #7 needs fullstop at end
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • note how in ref #4 there's a fullstop after the middle initial of the second author before the year, but this fullstop is missing in ref #9; need to check throughout to make consistent
got ref 9, will keep checking. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • there's a mixture of title case and sentence case in article titles
working on converting all to title case (alot of them!!) think I got 'em all... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #12 - the "b" of cytochrome b needs to be italicized
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #13 - "American Museum noviciates" cap last word & fix spelling
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #14 - be consistent on whether US state is given in location; compare "Princeton, New Jersey" vs. #5 "New York"
I think I've added larger locators to all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #18 (Van den Bossche 2002) is a 200-page PDF, you'll definitely need to specify page #'s
'split and done Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #24 there's a JSTOR link you could add
added fulltext link instead Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #27 (Berthold 2001) there's a PDF available online
url fulltext link added Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #28 don't need to specify fulltext, as PDF is already indicated and fulltext is therefore assumed
ok Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #29 isbn?; and "eds" should be indicated
isbn fetched Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #33 "editors" vs. "eds" or "ed" in other instances
all now (ed) or (eds) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #35 (Johst 2001) doi is broken
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #38 needs doi
doi added Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #43 author separated by "&", which is inconsistent with the rest. Also needs publisher.
got it x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #45 add a JSTOR link
added link to article pdf instead. MeegsC | Talk 14:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #47 "Alexander, R Mcneill" fullstop after the R (there's other examples of this throughout, I'll stop mentioning them now), and check to see if that should be a capital N
got this one - will look for others Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • refs #49-51: all of a sudden the years are given in parentheses, contrary to prior instances
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #52 italicize binomial
ok Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #57 double comma, remove "fulltext" & retrieval date
ok Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #58 add JSTOR link
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ref #60 note "and" given before last author
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • refs #66, 67 need issue #; latter needs full page range
issues added Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 71, 73 - fullstops after initials or not?
got 'em. pesky little critters aren't tehy? thought I got 'em all... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 73 page #'s
  • 74 journal name is abbreviated (unlike others)
unabbrev'ed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 77 "José I. Aguirre" is not consistent with last, full initial format elsewhere
must have missed that one. fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 78 (fulltext)
removed, and accessdate removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 80 provide Jstor link
jstor added Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 81 "neerlandica" not capitalized?
  • Can you confirm that country adjectives should be capitalised in Dutch? Library of Congress uses lc. I know some languages like French use lc for adjectives (francais, not Francais), but I don't speak dutch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've capped it for now on a strong hunch based on Google search and knowledge of a cognate language, German. I'll ask Ucucha when he gets back to verify. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 82 needs issue #
  • 83, 84, 90, 94, 96 missing fullstop after initial
done - damn, my browser keeps freezing when I use cntrl-F on edit page...????? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 85 dump retrieval date
gone Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 86 "V6gel" should be umlauted or something?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 87 add year
  • 88 add creation date, see bottom of page for recommended citation format
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 93 don't need month in the publication date, not given in other refs
  • 97 unabbreviated journal title
  • Berliner und Munchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 99 there appear to be extra spaces before the semicolons
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 103 two et al. means author list needs fixin'
  • appears to have been fixed
  • 110 publisher/work?
  • pub added
  • 111, 112 remove (fulltext)
done x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 112 remove retrieval date
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 133 where is Wheaton?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 116 mention (eds); fix double fullstop; pages?
got (eds), can't see double fullstop - will chase person who added ref Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 117 specify Oxford, UK (to be consistent with others)
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 119 needs title case; Manchester, UK
done both Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 123 not a RS
  • rereffed to a Polish Govt site, should be adequate for this simple fact Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 124 title case
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 125 author format
  • 126 pages ?; Warszawa=Warsaw (English name); specify Polish language (?); formatting
formatted, I need to chase the submitter for page refs Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 130 title case; isbn?; (ed)
ttile case done + isbn added Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 131 New York, New York
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 132 title case
got it Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful source for etymology[edit]

While looking up which works of Ovid the stork appears in (I think it is here when Antigone of Troy is turned into a stork by Juno in Metamorphoses, though I failed to locate the works of Horace the stork appears in), I came across this reference which may be useful: Thomas, Richard F. 1988. Vergil's "White Bird" and the Alexandrian reference (G. 2. 319-20). Classical Philology 83(3): 214-217. doi:10.1086/367107. That is available online here. Also, there seems to be some sort of link with the Thracian land of Cicones, though I'm not clear what exactly. Obviously that last bit can't be taken further without a source, and may be more appropriate for the Ciconia article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rubber band conservation[edit]

Came across this article this morning and thought I would post the information here: http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2012/02/rubber-worms/ - White storks confuse rubber bands for worms. Not a good part of their diet. This information could be entered into the conservation section.Thompsma (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow - yes fascinating and important - reminds me of sea turtles and their mistaking of plastic bags for jellyfish....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Succession of breeding pairs[edit]

This sentence is unclear:
"A succession of pairs have been observed occupying a nest for a few days before moving on, the reason for which is unclear."
In the source we can read: "The first pair occupied the nest for 5-8 days, the second pair for one day, and probably only the third pair remained at the nest to actually breed" (here).

It didn't mention that the pairs, who occupying a nest for a few days are move on the nest. Please check out this note. 193.200.82.28 (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC) kuba

I have attempted a rewrite based on a re-reading of the paper. Hope it is clearer. Shyamal (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
now it looks better, thanks, 193.200.82.28 (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC) kuba

Dead link[edit]

Spaar, Reto; Bruderer, Bruno (1996).
I found similar text the same authors: "Migration by Flapping or Soaring: Flight Strategies of Marsh, Montagu's and Pallid Harriers in Southern Israel" (text here), but i can't find there information about energetic difference beetwen flapping and soaring flight. Could anyone help? D kuba (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Culture/Beliefs[edit]

"Poles, Lithuanians and Ukrainians believe that storks bring harmony to a family on whose property they nest" - cited source didn't mention the Poles and Lithuanians, only "Ukrainian and other European folk". Anybody knows other, reliable source? D kuba (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

Hi, that link: Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) is dead. It is very important source. Anyone knows other site/source for this paragraph? D kuba (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Web Timemachine/Wayback has a copy https://web.archive.org/web/20110812085950/http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/zensus/zensus2006/worldpopulation.pdf Shyamal (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I also found full pdf: http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/bergenhusen/130618-nabu-weissstorchenzensus.pdf D kuba (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)