Behold the chicken of Mother Carey
and also of the Virgin Mary
Sounds like a fairy being sick
eats fish heads from an oily slick
Loved by rebels like Maxim Gorky
but feared by sailors (that's no porky!)
Apologies to lovers of poetry or anyone else with even minimal aesthetic sensibilities. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 10:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Forsooth I say of thine
The images are many and fine
Check them I shall,
and for a while
Let us discuss together
This bird of fowl weather
This is under OTRS
Free as a bird, loose as a dress
A license most fair, one I adore
Creative commons, one and all
For us to enjoy and have a ball But this, and this, is it his own? For sooth,
Even I know not the truth
No EXIF data, so bitty and square
And no resolution to spare
But friend, let us end our song
On a note that can do no wrong
For two more, yours and my
Freedom we cannot deny.
It's no good, I can't keep it up, especially as your effort is so much better than my doggerel. Thanks for the image review. I've replaced the medal with an FP of the man himself, the only advantage of the medal was that it showed the bird too. I've taken out the chickpic. I have an out of copyright coloured figure of a stormy's egg, but the quality is too poor, better without unless I can find another source. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 14:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There we go, images are a-okay. Prose tomorrow (UTC+7) maybe, as I have to be at work for 7 tomorrow morning. Understand the bit about the bird / medal... shame to lose it. I'll see if Wehwalt (who knows coins quite well can help). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Source review - but no spotchecks for you
Because most pages some space do include, footnote 5 without seems terribly crude
Duivendijk to Enticott is a same-publisher brother, but one publisher name is not like the other
While footnote 10's Cagnon has not one comma but two, footnote 56 is one author too few
Though to many the hyphen and dash lack import, I find that Christie's title uses a line that's too short
On the other hand, just to finish the song, the lines in Sinclair's ISBN are too long. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
In 1905, I've heard it told/came rushing forth the rebels bold
Once again I must declare/ a thank you for your comments fair Jimfbleak -talk to me? 13:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
On the whole, it is now time, to support / this article, so sublime, best I've read of sort. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" (apologies to Lewis Carroll) Jimfbleak -talk to me? 17:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments by Aa77zz
The article looks good. I hope that a photographer, on seeing the article, will contribute a photo of the bird feeding (similar to this) and perhaps a recording of the purring sound made by the male birds in the nest holes.
I hope so too, it's not an easy subject, a tiny scrap only normally seen at sea Jimfbleak -talk to me? 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you really need the citation in the first line?
The text: "the morphology is not sufficiently different from that of the nominate subspecies to justify this split" sounds as if this is the opinion of the author - perhaps better as "the morphology is not considered sufficiently different from that of the nominate subspecies to justify a split"
The article has "although individuals will sometimes dive for food to a depth of not more than 0.5 m (18 in)." and cites Flood et al 2009. There is a more recent article on the melitensis subspecies that claims that the birds dive to depths of up to 5 meters: Albores‐Barajasa, Y V; Riccatoa, F; Fiorinb, R; Massac, B; Torricellia, P; Soldatinia, C (2011). "Diet and diving behaviour of European Storm Petrels Hydrobates pelagicus in the Mediterranean (ssp. melitensis)". Bird Study58 (2): 208–212. doi:10.1080/00063657.2011.560244. (Also available here). The publication by Mante and Debize (2012) which is cited elsewhere in the wiki article, also mentions 5 meters but doesn't give a source. I've found another publication that mention diving: Griffiths, A M (1981). "European Storm-petrels Hydrobates pelagicus feeding by diving off South Africa". Cormorant9 (1): 47.. It reports that the birds dived to around 30cm. The wiki article on the Band-rumped Storm Petrel also mentions diving. I have doubts about the 5m depth - it could easily be faulty depth gauges - but perhaps the paper should be mentioned in this article.
Having seen these birds, I was surprised to discover that they can dive at all. Flood is supported by photos and videos. I find the Mediterranean results difficult to believe, but you are right, they need mentioning. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
" The oil, rich in vitamin A, is produced by a large gland in the stomach." The source: Turner et al. (2012) p. 307. doesn't look good. I cannot see page 307 but page 308 of the 4th edition here has "Although diving petrels (Pelecanoides) have the nostrils beak and stomach glands that are characteristic of tubenoses..." (no Vit A) A more specialized source on the physiology would be better. Does HBW have an article that mentions the physiology of Procellariiformes? Or perhaps one of the books cited in the Procellariiformes article - or Warham, John (1990). The Petrels: Their Ecology and Breeding Systems. London: Academic Press. ISBN9780127354200. (I haven't checked these)
Concise BWP doesn't say that either, sourced to Leon et al and modified to say what they found Jimfbleak -talk to me? 13:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Turner 2012. The isbn points to the 4th edition published in 2013. The authors are George Karleskint, Jr.; Richard L Turner; James W Small. ie Turner is the second author. The edition should be specified.
I may have more later. Aa77zz (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for review so far , comments, and for formatting the journals so helpfully Jimfbleak -talk to me? 13:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - The article is comprehensive, well organised and the sources are appropriate. I've made a few small copy edits. I suspect there are still places in the article where the prose could be more polished but I'm not skilled enough to help with this. Aa77zz (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
There are two recognised subspecies. The North Atlantic nominate subspecies, H. p. pelagicus, and the Mediterranean H. p. melitensis (Schembri, 1843).- the second of these is not a sentence as it lacks a verb - I guess you could use a dash to join them or rephrase....
I think this is something that crept in late, replaced full stop with comma now Jimfbleak -talk to me? 06:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The Storm Petrel breeds on exposed and uninhabited islands which it visits only to breed and always at night- ungainly and needs some rewording. An alternative isn't jumping out at me yet....
the second "breed" is redundant, already said they are breeding islands, now which it visits only at night. It otherwise frequents...Jimfbleak -talk to me? 06:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a great lead. The article is well-organized, and the prose is very good. It actually has a valuable "in culture" section, which you don't see every day. The sourcing is excellent, as usual. I have just a few recommendations regarding grammar, but they're not clearly errors.
Consider using commas to split adjectives, as in "a fluttering, bat-like flight".
I think "with Halipeurus pelagicus occurring at much higher densities" would be better than "Halipeurus pelagicus occurring at much higher densities".
Still, the quality is quite high, and I'm left without much to do as a review. Support. – Quadell(talk) 16:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I've added commas where they seem appropriate and followed your parasite recommendation. Thanks for review, comments and support Jimfbleak -talk to me? 16:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments from User Snowmanradio
I have got a paperback version of Collins Bird Guide, also 1999, and the storm petrel page is 24. The isbn in the article is that of the hardback and the pages are given as 74 to 75. Is there this much difference between the paperback and hardback?Snowman (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my error. I put the date of the first edition, now corrected to the 2009 second edition that I actually used. The page numbers are significantly different because the second edition uses a revised taxonomic sequence that starts with Anseriformes and Galliformes, effectively pushing all the other orders about 50 pages further back Jimfbleak -talk to me? 19:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The reference in the description of range map on Commons also needs clarification. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
"Mother Carey" is a term in the Oxford English Dictionary and the definition also explains her chickens. Apparently, the term is used for storm petrels in general and not just the European Storm Petrel species. Also, see an illustration from The Encyclopedia Americana 1920 on Commons showing a Mother Carey's chicken (presumably an American one); see File:Americana 1920 Birds.jpg.Snowman (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Added a footnote and ref to indicate term has been transferred to other petrels Jimfbleak -talk to me? 07:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The first mention or Mother Careys Chickens in the OED is in 1767 in a quote from John Hawkesworth in a work about voyages to the South Seas, so this may not refer to the European Storm Petrol only. The OED says that it is a UK and USA term. The OED included quotes by Mark Twain and Herman Melville using the term. I think that the links of Mother Carey's chickens to one species of storm petrol needs double checking. I note that Linnaeus scientifically described the European Storm Petrel in 1758. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The actual text by Hawkesworth (recorded 1767 published 1773) is here. When near the Strait of Magellan he writes: "we saw also a great many pintado birds of nearly the same size which are prettily spotted with black and white and constantly on the wing though they frequently appear as if they were walking upon the water like the peterels to which sailors have given the name of Mother Carey's chickens and we saw also many of these." Aa77zz (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@Aa77zz, thanks for link. @snowman. Well, I've already added the note to say that the term is used for other storm petrels, I would have thought that was sufficient. Non-ornithologists often treated similar species such as the European and Wilson's Storm Petrels as effectively the same, just like people refer to "gulls" rather than Black-headed Gull etc. When I was researching this, I had to take some care to exclude US sources which just said Storm Petrel when they could only have been referring to Wilson's. Same with Mother Carey's Chickens. While the Pintado is very distinctive, the description only says it feeds like Mother Carey's Chicken. Turning to the quote and we saw also many of these, I don't know that 18th-century sailors would have distinguished the various white-rumped storm petrels, they are tricky enough even when you know what you are looking for. I've already said that Linnaeus described the European species in para 2 of taxonomy, not sure what you are getting at there. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 12:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I expect that 18th-centruay sailors would not have been able to identify individual species, so surely the term "Mother Carey' chickens was for any sort of storm petrel, and this is the primary meaning of the term. I think that the footnote is not adequate, and I think that this should be in the main text and explained properly. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Move comment into main text. The use of this term must obviously pre-date Hawkesworth for it to make sense to his readers, and it's overwhelmingly likely that the term applied originally to the British bird and expanded to other white-rumped species because their similarity meant that they were assumed to be the same bird. Now, that's OR, but so is your claim that it was first applied to all storm petrels. Unless you can reference your claim, I can't see that we can do more than state the fact Jimfbleak -talk to me?
I have not got access to the Chambers dictionary, but I would have thought that the OED would be better as a reference. The OED has a list of quotes for the use of the "Mother Carey" going back to 1767 and it seems that the oldest quote links the term to seabirds in the South Seas. How far does the Chambers dictionary go back? Snowman (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Chambers doesn't give first uses. I'm happy it to be reffed to OED, but I can't do it myself because I don't have access to it. Although the first surviving written record is 1767, it's obvious even from that quote that the term was in general use earlier. He wrote "Mother Carey's chickens" expecting his readers to know the term. The fact that the first written record was in the southern oceans obviously doesn't imply that the term originated there, which would be extremely unlikely. If this is a sticking point as well as Gorky, I might as well remove the whole of the "In Culture" section to try to move this FAC along Jimfbleak -talk to me? 11:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It is going to be difficult to write an account of the use of these terms as they were used before the terms were written down. There is evidence that the European Storm Petrel was called Stormy Petrel and Mother Carey's Chicken, because these are names provided in Francis Orpen Morris', A History of British Birds, volume 6, however this was published in the 1850s. It might be possible to write a brief account of the use of these terms after 1767, but not before. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Surely the most appropriate place for the history of the term is at the Mother Carey's chickens article? I don't see that as particularly relevant to this page, we already have an RS source that the term applies to this species, and I've accepted that it may be applied to similar species too Jimfbleak -talk to me? 11:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Changed to OED and added date of first recorded use 13:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Re: Levin, Dan (25 June 1965). "Stormy petrel: the life and work of Maxim Gorky". Time Magazine (Appleton-Century). Subscription needed. The link looks like it is to a Time Magazine book review with the webpage heading "Books: A Legend Exhumed". I am not sure if the source is the book or the review.Snowman (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Ref extended to make it clear that it's the review Jimfbleak -talk to me? 07:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that this is worth double checking, because the largely unreferenced Wiki article of the book The Song of the Stormy Petrel has translated the Russian text and also has a section specifically what bird it might be. Apparently, it does not apply to one species of storm petrol. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, you are right that the Russian word doesn't refer to a specific seabird species, and Gorky wasn't an ornithologist. What I've said is that the poem is translated into English as Stormy Petrel, and similarly for Gorky's nickname. This is clearly the case, and the various non-Russian anarchist groups took their names from the English version. It's obviously the European species that's intended in the English versions, why would European anarchists want to refer to any other species? "Who killed Cock Robin?" doesn't specify European Robin and House Sparrow, but those are clearly the intended species. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
No. The article should be clearer than that. It should say that the English version is a misinterpretation of the Russian, if that is what has happened. I think that the article is currently misleading. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've added a clause that it may not be an accurate translation of the Russian (although I can't find any English-language text that gives a different version) 14:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Jimfbleak -talk to me? 15:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
... but you have not included the nitty gritty that the term used in the Russian poem was a far more general word for a type of a seabird. Snowman (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
according to an unreferenced claim in a Wikipedia article, doubly unreliable. Even Google translate (and another machine translation I tried" gave "Песня о Буревестнике" as "Song of the Storm Petrel", and also translated the last word on its own as "Storm Petrel". I've said that the translation may not be accurate, I don't speak Russian, and I can't find another translation. This article is about a bird, not Russian literature, and I'm unwilling to waste more time on an unsourced claim that's irrelevant to the fact that this is how it's always translated in English.Jimfbleak -talk to me? 15:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I am disappointed that you see looking in to this further as wasted time. I think that this is worth spending more time on this to get it right. The Russian Wiki article on the European Storm Petrel is ru:Прямохвостая_качурка. When I put in "ru:Буревестник" (without the e at the end) in the Russian Wiki it redirected to ru:Буревестниковые (English: Procellariidae). I think that there is some truth in that the translation of "Буревестнике" from the Russian is a general name of a type of seabird in English, probably a Procellariidae. I really do not know why you expect the on-line translators to be accurate on translating these sort of technical terms. I know this is an article mainly about a bird with only a little on Russian literature; nevertheless, I think that this article should not include an error in translation. Snowman (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Russian Wikipedia is not RS. I can't access one of the references, and the other is dead. I don't understand what you mean by an error in translation. Are you saying we shouldn't mention the Gorky poem or nickname, or any of the anarchist groups because it should have been "The Song of the Procellaridae"? The fact is, mistranslation or not, in English it's always translated as "Storm Petrel" in the Gorky/anarchist context, and it's clear that all the many books and commentaries take it as Hydrobates. I don't see any mileage in delving into what it should have been translated as, particularly without an RS source, the interest is in what it is actually translated as. And ornithologists like Mark Cocker put in under the Storm Petrel heading in his book, so it's not just the experts on Russian literature and politics. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 08:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The en Wiki article on storm petrels, the ru Wiki, and Google translator all say that petrol is a general word for a seabird probably meaning any one bird of the storm petrel family. These three sources may not be RS on the Wiki, but the fact that they are all the same would indicate double checking of the translation is needed. (Petrel and Storm Petrel in English both translate to Буревестник on the google translator]). These three sources all say that Буревестник (with or without e on the end) can mean a storm petrol in general and not an individual species. As far as I understand it, the Euorpean Storm Petrol is not seen in Russia, so I am puzzled why an Russian author who did not know much about ornithology would write about it. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
No other petrel or other Procellaridae species breeds in European Russia either, since it doesn't have an oceanic coast. I suspect that Gorky probably didn't have a particular petrel in mind, or even necessarily visualised a petrel, but I don't claim to know what was in the mind of a long-dead poet. Whatever he thought in 1915, the translators have all translated it as the species that they would have expected, the Storm(y) Petrel, not Wilson's Petrel or any other petrel, and I doubt that non-ornithologist translators would have had Hydrobatidae in mind as they worked, rather than the common European species. We have an RS ornithological source (Cocker) which places this under the species, not the family, whereas you seem to be suggesting that I replace all the referenced facts regarding Gorky with your opinions and original research. I'm not going to change the general thrust of that section, so if you think it's important enough to oppose, that's up to you. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 13:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I have invited an editor, who wrote the current version of this topic on the storm petrel Wiki article, to advance the discussion here. Snowman (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the meaning of burevestnik (invariably translated as "storm petrel") in Gorky's Song. I have added a reference to the period's standard Russian dictionary (Vladimir Dal's Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language) to the article, and have copied the relevant dictionary entry to Talk:The Song of the Stormy Petrel. Basically, burevestnik or bird of storm was (and I believe still is) a generic name for the Procellariidae in Russian. The European Storm Petrel, specifically known in Russian as kachurka, was given as one of the four examples of the burevestnik species in the dictionary, along with the Wandering Albatross etc. As of 1901, when Gorky wrote the Song, he had not yet spent any time outside of the interior of Russia (his Capri period was not to start until a few years later), and probably had never encounter any sea birds in real life, or had any particular knowledge of any Procellariidae species. Obviously his use of the image was highly symbolic, so it was entirely appropriate for Gorky's translators to pay more attention to the name of the bird (literally, "a Messenger of the Storm") than to the underlying ornithological reference, and to use "storm petrel" or "stormy petrel" as a translation. I doubt any translators were concerned about the actual biological nomenclature in use!
When Russian artists depict Gorky's bird on various monuments, plaques, illustrations to Gorky's works, etc, it basically looks like a large seagull in flight. A Russian author of Gorky's time writing about a sea voyage certainly could call a European Storm Petrel a burevestnik, but he also could use the term with respect to any number of other related sea birds.
Incidentally, Gorky's other famous "song" of the period, has a Grass Snake [in Russian, Uzh - a generic name for a group of non-poisonous snakes] and a Falcon as protagonists. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I think it's pretty clear that the use was metaphorical rather than ornithological, but your additions give more examples and clarify the Russian. I think the stumbling block is that Snowman does not accept that the metaphorical use is appropriate unless it can be pinned down to an ornithological entity (apologies if that's a misrepresentation), and that he doesn't think that this is the entity. I suspect that despite the extra info that disagreement will not be resolved Jimfbleak -talk to me? 07:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not jump to conclusions about why I think the article needs amendments. I am aware that you have apologies in advance and now I would be grateful of you would please withdrawn that suggestion that I was aiming for a wholly ornithological translation. My aim here is to improve the article and we can be expected to be pulling in the same direction. I am concerned that the nature of the translation is not well represented in the Wiki article. I am aware that the translation is probably largely metaphorical and also I guess that it might also be a bit of an Anglicization to a species known well by English speaking people. Snowman (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to withdraw the suggestion, although I don't think I was suggesting that you didn't realise that it was a metaphor, rather that you didn't seem to think it applied to this species (and in the Russian original it clearly didn't refer to any species). I've posted on your talk page offering to remove the last three paragraphs, since I can't see any other way forward on this Jimfbleak -talk to me? 10:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have been thinking about the paragraph on Gorgy, but I have not begun to analyze the other two short paragraphs at the end of the "Culture" section. With regards the Gorgy paragraph, I think that there are many ways forward to explain the nature of the translation from Russian better. Snowman (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs depend on the connection to Gorky, so if he goes, they need to go too. If you think the Gorky stuff can be kept with rewording, please amend as you see fit. We've spend eight days on Mother Carey and Gorky, and at least from my viewpoint seem to be making little progress. That's why I've offered to remove the Gorky/anarchist paras or the whole of the section to try to move this along. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 11:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I would say that the discussion here has significantly advanced over the last eight days with regard to Gorgy's poem and Mother Carey's Chicken. I think that it is likely that improvements in the article will follow. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, I think that the book review probably is not a RS for the Wiki. It includes the term "Hemingway with Heartburn.", which sounds like a subjective statement to me. The heading for the review includes "Stormy Petrel", which is not the same as "Storm Petrel".Snowman (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
"This is variously believed ...": Why not say; "It is believed ..."? Actually, the OED says that the origin of Mother Carey is uncertain but makes some suggestions, so I wonder what degree of certitude should be used. It is extremely difficult when sources do not give the same account, if that is what is happening here.Snowman (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I've removed "variously" and made a couple of other minor changes. The three explanations seem much the same to me; Cocker references Lockwood as his source, and Lockwood would have been familiar with Brewer (both use the obscure term "noa"), OED uses Brewer, so they are all singing from the same hymnbook Jimfbleak -talk to me? 17:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
"... as disparate as a Roman tribune,". Excuse me, I do not know much about Roman tribune. I found out that this is from Ancient Roman times according to the linked Wiki page. If this is correct, then the old use could be made clearer.Snowman (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Provisional impression. Support. I have focused on the culture section. I edit bird articles and I have edited this article mainly during the FAC, so some may say that I have a conflict of interest; however, I have tried my best to be objective. There may be a few rather minor clarifications to sort out that could be resolved before or after the FA status award, nevertheless, I would support FA status. Snowman (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Really nice article, very well written. Just a few quick thoughts:
"trill" is a bit jargony.
Really? I can't think of a more appropriate word, but I've linked to trill (music)and added a gloss. If you think that's OTT, feel free to remove one or the other. FWIW, in youf-talk "please be trill" means true+real (: Jimfbleak -talk to me? 09:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought with the Distribution section; you say that it breeds uninhabited islands, but also mention a colony on an inhabited island. (You also mention that they nest in/under buildings.) There's a similar issue with how you mention that it's seen from land only in Autumn storms, but then mention that it's routinely seen from land in parts of Africa.
Added "usually". Obviously it's man's rats and cats that prevent colonies surviving on most inhabited islands. Of course there are islands with buildings that are no longer inhabited, like St Kilda, so the presence of buildings isn't necessarily a contradiction. I thought that Africa bit might be a problem. I didn't see any proper seabirds in a November week on the Gambia coast a few years back, and I suspect that Barlow meant "in appropriate weather", but he doesn't actually say that. I began the sentence with "in Europe... " for precisely that reason Jimfbleak -talk to me? 08:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
European Storm Petrels certainly breed on inhabited islands. One of the largest breeding colonies (perhaps the largest) is on the island of Nólsoy (pop. 253) in the Faroes. See here. Aa77zz (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd completely missed this comment. I think the change to "usually" above covers that, since the majority of colonies, irrespective of size are on inhabited islands Jimfbleak -talk to me? 10:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
"Artificial nests are readily used" What's an artificial nest? If you mean human-made, this seems to go against the claim that they "less commonly nest in walls, under buildings".
Walls and buildings are likely to have relatively few suitable crevices, and obviously the petrels can't dig in stone, it's not an aversion to man-made as such. I've made it clear that the artificial nests are plastic tubes, which basically present the petrel with an effort-free perfect home. Jimfbleak -talk to me? 08:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I feel you could say a little more about the association with storms; in what way are they associated with storms? What's the biology of this?
I found a source that explained why they appear in rougher weather, basically it's harder to fly when there is no wind. (OR follows) I went on two boat trips in August and September, in very un-British warm, calm weather. Despite chumming, the Penzance trip produced just one stormie, and the Bridlington boat had no storm petrels orshearwatersJimfbleak -talk to me? 08:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
On web-searching for "lee of ships" combined with "storm petrel" several pages pop up explaining that storm petrels shelter in the lee of ships in bad weather at sea. I am not sure if any of these are RS nor if any specifically mention the European Storm Petrel, but I think that this is likely to be worth following up to see if there is anything relevant that can be added to the article. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I've not taken a look at the sources, but, that aside, this looks excellent. I particularly enjoyed the section on superstition. J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for review and comments, much appreciated Jimfbleak -talk to me? 08:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support, provided a source check comes back OK. The prose is excellent, and this does seem to be comprehensive. J Milburn (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The license for the image of a Great Skua has already been approved above - but I have doubts. The photograph appears not to have been taken by the uploader as the source is given as "With permission from: Murray Nurse, Guildford , England". My understanding is that in such cases an OTRS certificate is required. Aa77zz (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Replaced with an Eleanora's Falcon that does have an OTRS Jimfbleak -talk to me? 12:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
A smile to my face these rhyming fools
Do bring, for they have all the tools
To craft a dandy FAC
That fairly cries, "Promote me!"