Talk:Grey currawong

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 14:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I will review in detail later, but some things:–

• Lead could be a bit longer

have buffed lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why are some refs missing the article title?

Sometimes, if using a secondary source (like Higgins), where there is a specific source identifying a specific fact, I'll use the specific one - however I was unable to find and view the originals in these cases and Higgins often leaves out the names of the article. I have reverted to the secondary source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• A few very short, stubby paragraphs.

working on that - two to go Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 14:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lead: add where nominate ssp lives

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps add something about voice and breeding to the lead

both mentioned in lead now Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think you could do without some of the comparisons to the Pied Currawong in the lead.

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Grey- or Leaden Crow-shrike"—is this short for Grey Cow-shrike or Leaden Cow-shrike or for Grey-shrike or Leaden Crow-shrike? If the latter, the hyphen shouldn't be there.

it is the former (i.e. Grey Cow-shrike) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why did Sibley and Ahlquist use a tribe (Cracticini) when Artamidae has only two subfamilies?

Good point! will look into it Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC) aha, because they had a very broad circumscription of the family Corvidae and placed the two as a group within another subfamily corvinae. These families have all been split off now, so cracticini was elevated artamidae (and artamidae takes precendence over cracticidae as it is about 100 years older) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• "a specimen from Central Australia"—can the location be more concrete than that?

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• "one bird was observed impaling a rodent"—any chance you know what rodent it was?

Hah, I should have known you'd ask that. I'll take a look to see what can be added Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• "It was also a common casualty of collisions with vehicles."—sounds very artificial
• "purple-, grey- or blue-tinged brown"—WP:HYPHEN discourages (but does not prohibit) these "hanging hyphens"

I think they are necessary to avoid repetition as in "purple-tinged, grey-tinged or blue-tinged brown", i am open to other suggestions though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what the MOS recommends. I agree that this looks better though, but you may get someone upset about it at the FAC. Ucucha 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Images look good. Perhaps put one of those now under the subspecies list in the taxobox, as the taxobox image is not nearly as clear as those.

I am waiting on some more OTRS permissions too. I asked a bird discussion group to get some and some helpful folks obliged. Will have a juggle Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good enough for GA in any case, but if you could get more pictures, that would of course be even better. Ucucha 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sources all look reliable. Did you get all good sources from the list I sent you?

That list was good and there was some useful stuff. Funnily enough one of the pied currawong ones a few months ago was acutally for this one :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am now passing this as a GA, as nothing that's still open has any bearing on the GA criteria. They may be helpful for FAC, though. One more question: do we know which two species of currawongs are most closely related? Ucucha 20:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - the Black Currawong (of Tasmania) was considered a subspecies of the Pied (of Mainland Oz), but was split in recent years (after being considered a separate species early on). Given that, I find it odd that the distinctive Clinking subspecies (which theoretically must have been separated for the same amount of time as the Black from its mainland relative the Grey Currawong) is still considered only a subspecies, but time will tell. As far as I can make out, there has been no molecular work on the genus to date (which would be interesting given all the variables of plumage which occur - you have grey forms at either end of the continent, with a large sooty form on Tas, and a small sooty form on Kangaroo Island, and intermediate forms with unusual black wings in the middle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey currawong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816021808/http://www.aboriginaleducation.sa.edu.au/files/links/Dreaming_stories_and_bird.pdf to http://www.aboriginaleducation.sa.edu.au/files/links/Dreaming_stories_and_bird.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey currawong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009041937/http://nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/threatened/pdf/birds/grey_currawong_cr.pdf to http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/threatened/pdf/birds/grey_currawong_cr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey currawong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912094601/http://www.weeds.org.au/docs/bcstrat.pdf to http://www.weeds.org.au/docs/bcstrat.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Intro on Status

The intro says it has adapted poorly to human impact and has declined in much of its range. This gives the impression that there is some concern for its conservation status. But the box says its Least concern. I find this a bit contradictory, alhough formally probalby correct. --Ettrig (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

On the whole it is not common in places where people are, contrasting markedly with the pied currawong which is as common as muck. But it is widely distributed and not rare. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

References section

A sub-section in the "References" section is named "Bibliography". The term, although discouraged, is used as works or publications in biographies and MOS:NOTES states: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications"). I realize this is not a biography but for consistency was wondering if a better choice could be used. I understand if this is used a lot on certain article I just don't recall running across it. Otr500 (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't use the term and have changed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I might have been compelled to change it but sometimes it is just better to check with the regular article editors. Otr500 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to change any others you come across and let me know if a discussion arises Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Casliber looks good, one question:

• Overall, data on the social behaviour of the grey currawong is lacking, and roosting habits are unknown.[14] ... this is cited to 2006-- still true? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)