User talk:Jimfbleak: Difference between revisions
| Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
# <u>Summer/winter terminology:</u> Summer/winter, widely used in the text and at the map in the taxobox, display a distinct US/Euro centrism. This can easily be resolved by changing to the far superior breeding/non-breeding. You may also notice that field guides that cover the main "wintering" areas use non-breeding or similar terminology instead. When birders in Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, etc, see a Common Tern, it will usually be the non-breeding "winter" plumage during ''their'' summer (South Hemisphere Summer = North Hemisphere Winter). It just doesn't make sense to call something you see in the summer the winter plumage. "1st winter/summer" is equally problematic, and it can be replaced by 1st basic (= [[Humphrey-Parkes terminology]]), following the lead of many guides that deal with this species in the Southern Hemisphere, such as the field guide to Peru (already among citations), ''Birds of Chile'' (Jaramillo ''et al.'', 2003) and most South African guides. |
# <u>Summer/winter terminology:</u> Summer/winter, widely used in the text and at the map in the taxobox, display a distinct US/Euro centrism. This can easily be resolved by changing to the far superior breeding/non-breeding. You may also notice that field guides that cover the main "wintering" areas use non-breeding or similar terminology instead. When birders in Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, etc, see a Common Tern, it will usually be the non-breeding "winter" plumage during ''their'' summer (South Hemisphere Summer = North Hemisphere Winter). It just doesn't make sense to call something you see in the summer the winter plumage. "1st winter/summer" is equally problematic, and it can be replaced by 1st basic (= [[Humphrey-Parkes terminology]]), following the lead of many guides that deal with this species in the Southern Hemisphere, such as the field guide to Peru (already among citations), ''Birds of Chile'' (Jaramillo ''et al.'', 2003) and most South African guides. |
||
# <u>Distribution:</u> Several major non-br. areas in the Americas are not marked on the map (not to be confused with regions that purely are transient, although there are several regions where both transients and non-breeding are found). Along the Pacific coast of South America, it is a regular non-breeding visitor south to around [[Santiago de Chile]], about 2000 km further south than the present border on the map (see e.g., pp. 130-131 in ''Birds of Chile''), at the Galápagos (p. 56 in ''Birds, Mammals, & Reptiles of the Galápagos Islands'' by Swash & Still, 2000), along the entire Central American coast as far north as [[Jalisco]]/[[Nayarit]] and [[Tamaulipas]] (p. 308 in ''A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America'' by Howell & Webb, 1994, and p. 157 in ''Birds of Panama with Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras'' by Ridgely & Gwynne, 1989), the Caribbean islands (p. 292 in ''Birds of the West Indies'' by Raffaele ''et al'', 1998), and along most of the Australian coast (see e.g., Simpson & Day's guide to Australia, already listed among references in the article).</br> The text briefly mentions that there are small resident populations in Venezuela and the Caribbean, but despite their significance does not provide more detail and the small yellow dot in the Caribbean is malplaced at Puerto Rico (earlier reports of breeding at PR and the US Virgin Islands are apparently misidentified Roseate Terns, p. 292 in ''Birds of the West Indies''). The actual breeding populations are in the Bahamas, Cuba, the [[Los Roques archipelago]] and the [[Las Aves archipelago]] (p. 292 in ''Birds of the West Indies'', and p. 310 in ''Birds of Venezuela'' by Hilty, 2003). This also means that the first sentence in the Distribution and habitat section is wrong: "All populations of the Common Tern are strongly migratory". Most are, but the tropical breeders are at least partially resident.</br> While it is true that the vast majority of South American non-br. visitors are from North America, the distribution section overlooks that there also is a smaller trans-Atlantic migration route, as revealed by a number of records of birds banded in the [[Azores]] and later recovered on the southeast Brazilian coast and in smaller numbers in northeastern Argentina, and ''vice versa'' (banded in Brazil, recovered in Azores – e.g. [http://www.horta.uac.pt/intradop/images/stories/perspages/veronicaneves/09_Waterbirds2002.pdf Neves, Bremer & Hayes, 2002], and [http://www.ao.com.br/download/lnbahia.pdf Lima, 2006] [large file, bilingual, see p. XL for English for ''S. hirundo'']).</br> There is a brief section in the wiki article that deals with accidental records, and it might be worth mentioning that accidentals also have been recorded from the Andes, Amazon and along other rivers inland in South America (see field guide to Peru, already among references, [http://www.jstor.org/pss/4512366 DiCostanzo, 1978], etc). |
# <u>Distribution:</u> Several major non-br. areas in the Americas are not marked on the map (not to be confused with regions that purely are transient, although there are several regions where both transients and non-breeding are found). Along the Pacific coast of South America, it is a regular non-breeding visitor south to around [[Santiago de Chile]], about 2000 km further south than the present border on the map (see e.g., pp. 130-131 in ''Birds of Chile''), at the Galápagos (p. 56 in ''Birds, Mammals, & Reptiles of the Galápagos Islands'' by Swash & Still, 2000), along the entire Central American coast as far north as [[Jalisco]]/[[Nayarit]] and [[Tamaulipas]] (p. 308 in ''A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America'' by Howell & Webb, 1994, and p. 157 in ''Birds of Panama with Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras'' by Ridgely & Gwynne, 1989), the Caribbean islands (p. 292 in ''Birds of the West Indies'' by Raffaele ''et al'', 1998), and along most of the Australian coast (see e.g., Simpson & Day's guide to Australia, already listed among references in the article).</br> The text briefly mentions that there are small resident populations in Venezuela and the Caribbean, but despite their significance does not provide more detail and the small yellow dot in the Caribbean is malplaced at Puerto Rico (earlier reports of breeding at PR and the US Virgin Islands are apparently misidentified Roseate Terns, p. 292 in ''Birds of the West Indies''). The actual breeding populations are in the Bahamas, Cuba, the [[Los Roques archipelago]] and the [[Las Aves archipelago]] (p. 292 in ''Birds of the West Indies'', and p. 310 in ''Birds of Venezuela'' by Hilty, 2003). This also means that the first sentence in the Distribution and habitat section is wrong: "All populations of the Common Tern are strongly migratory". Most are, but the tropical breeders are at least partially resident.</br> While it is true that the vast majority of South American non-br. visitors are from North America, the distribution section overlooks that there also is a smaller trans-Atlantic migration route, as revealed by a number of records of birds banded in the [[Azores]] and later recovered on the southeast Brazilian coast and in smaller numbers in northeastern Argentina, and ''vice versa'' (banded in Brazil, recovered in Azores – e.g. [http://www.horta.uac.pt/intradop/images/stories/perspages/veronicaneves/09_Waterbirds2002.pdf Neves, Bremer & Hayes, 2002], and [http://www.ao.com.br/download/lnbahia.pdf Lima, 2006] [large file, bilingual, see p. XL for English for ''S. hirundo'']).</br> There is a brief section in the wiki article that deals with accidental records, and it might be worth mentioning that accidentals also have been recorded from the Andes, Amazon and along other rivers inland in South America (see field guide to Peru, already among references, [http://www.jstor.org/pss/4512366 DiCostanzo, 1978], etc). |
||
# <u>Moult:</u> There is almost no information on moult. For example, why is there a dark wedge on the outer primaries and why is it absent for a brief period in their non- |
# <u>Moult:</u> There is almost no information on moult. For example, why is there a dark wedge on the outer primaries and why is it absent for a brief period in their non-br region? (the explanation, of course, is that it moults the inner flight feathers twice but the outer only once, meaning that the latter are more worn [=darker] most of the time, unlike species such as the Arctic and South American Terns, as explained e.g. on p. 125 in ''Birds of Chile'') The unusual wing moult pattern also appears to play a major role in breeding ([http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1650/7381?prevSearch=&cookieSet=1 Bridge & Nisbet, 2004], [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0908-8857.2005.03470.x/full Bridge & Eaton, 2004], etc). |
||
# <u>Non-breeding appearance:</u> The description of the non-breeding appearance includes one omission that can be seen in older European literature (where full non-br. plumage rarely is seen). Based on the current version, you would believe that a dark carpal bar only is found in the 1st summer{{sic}}, but this is also present in adult non-breeders. Most field guides that include illustration/description of the non-br. plumage and were published within the last 5-10 years get it right ''with'' a dark carpal bar.</br> With the exception of the Antarctic/Common where there is a lengthy description, the separation of various similar species is also highly incomplete: No mention of "opposite seasons" and notable moult timing differences of Arctic and Antarctic compared to Common, no mention of the very different migratory patterns of Arctic and Antarctic compared to Common (Common spends the non-br. season on the coast and commonly migrates along the coast; in the same regions Arctic and Antarctic are more pelagic and less frequent at the coast), no mention of the larger bill of the South American Tern, no mention of the less distinct/absent dark carpal bar in non-br. and 1st basic South America, Arctic and Antarctic, no mention of the dark barred tertials of juv. and 1st basic South American and Antarctic (Common never has barred tertials), no mention of the notably shorter-legged appearance of the Arctic, and the "smoother, more extensive black cap" of the South American is ''only'' in the non-br. and 1st basic plumages (not br.). Pp. 125 and 130-131 in the field guide to Chile can be used as a citation for all this, but alternatively it is possible to use a combination of the field guide to Peru with various other guides (e.g., South African). In contrast, one of the few features that already is mentioned in the article (white rump of Antarctic) is highly unreliable because of the variability of the rump of Common. The only place this variability is hinted is in the section that deals with Arctic vs. Common, where it says the "rump of Common <u>can</u> be greyish in winter". In summary, whoever was the first person to make the claim that Arctic vs. Common is the hardest... quite certainly he had no experiance with the wide range of similar South Hemisphere terns.</br> There is also a complete absence of information about separating non-br./1st basic Roseate+Whiter-fronted from similar-plumaged Common (White-fronted is from New Zealand and Australia, though the present wiki article fails to mention the latter). Roseate in these plumages is covered fairly well in most guides that include tropical coastal regions and have been published within the last 10 years (even some of the more recent US/European guides have a basic coverage of these plumages) and for these non-br./1st basic Whiter-fronted most Australian guides are sufficient.</br> Disregarding the inaccuracies one could perhaps argue for leaving this out in a B-class article, but with the long description already present for Common vs. Antartic (revealing the lacking descriptions for other species), and the wish of raising it to FAC, this argument becomes harder to make.</br> Finally, it might be worth pointing out that ''S. h. longipennis'' is black-billed. It is already mentioned in the subspecies box, but in the Similar species section it just says "The bill of adult Common is orange-red with a black tip". |
# <u>Non-breeding appearance:</u> The description of the non-breeding appearance includes one omission that can be seen in older European literature (where full non-br. plumage rarely is seen). Based on the current version, you would believe that a dark carpal bar only is found in the 1st summer{{sic}}, but this is also present in adult non-breeders. Most field guides that include illustration/description of the non-br. plumage and were published within the last 5-10 years get it right ''with'' a dark carpal bar.</br> With the exception of the Antarctic/Common where there is a lengthy description, the separation of various similar species is also highly incomplete: No mention of "opposite seasons" and notable moult timing differences of Arctic and Antarctic compared to Common, no mention of the very different migratory patterns of Arctic and Antarctic compared to Common (Common spends the non-br. season on the coast and commonly migrates along the coast; in the same regions Arctic and Antarctic are more pelagic and less frequent at the coast), no mention of the larger bill of the South American Tern, no mention of the less distinct/absent dark carpal bar in non-br. and 1st basic South America, Arctic and Antarctic, no mention of the dark barred tertials of juv. and 1st basic South American and Antarctic (Common never has barred tertials), no mention of the notably shorter-legged appearance of the Arctic, and the "smoother, more extensive black cap" of the South American is ''only'' in the non-br. and 1st basic plumages (not br.). Pp. 125 and 130-131 in the field guide to Chile can be used as a citation for all this, but alternatively it is possible to use a combination of the field guide to Peru with various other guides (e.g., South African). In contrast, one of the few features that already is mentioned in the article (white rump of Antarctic) is highly unreliable because of the variability of the rump of Common. The only place this variability is hinted is in the section that deals with Arctic vs. Common, where it says the "rump of Common <u>can</u> be greyish in winter". In summary, whoever was the first person to make the claim that Arctic vs. Common is the hardest... quite certainly he had no experiance with the wide range of similar South Hemisphere terns.</br> There is also a complete absence of information about separating non-br./1st basic Roseate+Whiter-fronted from similar-plumaged Common (White-fronted is from New Zealand and Australia, though the present wiki article fails to mention the latter). Roseate in these plumages is covered fairly well in most guides that include tropical coastal regions and have been published within the last 10 years (even some of the more recent US/European guides have a basic coverage of these plumages) and for these non-br./1st basic Whiter-fronted most Australian guides are sufficient.</br> Disregarding the inaccuracies one could perhaps argue for leaving this out in a B-class article, but with the long description already present for Common vs. Antartic (revealing the lacking descriptions for other species), and the wish of raising it to FAC, this argument becomes harder to make.</br> Finally, it might be worth pointing out that ''S. h. longipennis'' is black-billed. It is already mentioned in the subspecies box, but in the Similar species section it just says "The bill of adult Common is orange-red with a black tip". |
||
# <u>Random odd facts that may (or may not) deserve inclusion:</u> They sometimes associated not only with predatory fish, but also dolphins ([http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00277.x/abstract Bugoni & Vooren, 2004]). The first wild bird where the influence virus was isolated was a Common Tern in 1961 ([http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5772/384.full Olsen ''et al''., 2006]). • [[User_talk:Rabo3|<span style="color:darkblue">''Rabo³''</span>]] • 11:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
# <u>Random odd facts that may (or may not) deserve inclusion:</u> They sometimes associated not only with predatory fish, but also dolphins ([http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00277.x/abstract Bugoni & Vooren, 2004]). The first wild bird where the influence virus was isolated was a Common Tern in 1961 ([http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5772/384.full Olsen ''et al''., 2006]). • [[User_talk:Rabo3|<span style="color:darkblue">''Rabo³''</span>]] • 11:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 11:08, 17 February 2012
I'll reply to messages posted here on your talk page
I'll reply to emails on your talk page too, so please provide a link.
Main page appearance: Cattle Egret
This is a note to let the main editors of Cattle Egret know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 14, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 14, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Cattle Egret is a cosmopolitan species of heron (family Ardeidae) found in the tropics, subtropics and warm temperate zones. Despite the similarities in plumage to the egrets of the genus Egretta, it is more closely related to the herons of Ardea. Originally native to parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, it has undergone a rapid expansion in its distribution and successfully colonised much of the rest of the world. It is a stocky white bird adorned with buff plumes in the breeding season which nests in colonies, usually near bodies of water and often with other wading birds. The nest is a platform of sticks in trees or shrubs. Unlike most other herons, it feeds in relatively dry grassy habitats, often accompanying cattle or other large mammals, since it catches insect and small vertebrate prey disturbed by these animals. Some populations of the Cattle Egret are migratory and others show post-breeding dispersal. The adult Cattle Egret has few predators, but birds or mammals may raid its nests, and chicks may be lost to starvation, calcium deficiency or disturbance from other large birds. This species removes ticks and flies from cattle, but it can be a safety hazard at airfields, and has been implicated in the spread of tick-borne animal diseases. (more...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Highway 401 FAC was restarted
Hey I just wanted to ping you because the FAC for Ontario Highway 401 was restarted by Raul and you had previously supported it. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ontario_Highway_401/archive2
MSU Interview
Dear Jimfbleak,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I had posted a page about my company that you deleted. After reading Wikipedia's policy I now understand it was too advertise-y (apologies for that). My last company has a page on here so I thought it would be ok to include an entry on my new company. Can I re-write and re-submit a very short factual piece for review? This is a unique company that has been around 30+ years and I just want to post some short factual information about them. If I am unable to write it I will try to figure out how to ask someone else on here to write it. Thanks in advance for your response, Jennifer (user: chhatlaj)
Congrats on tomorrow's FA
I noticed an article you nominated is getting featured on our main page tomorrow. Congrats, and hope the vandals don't go full force... :) dci | TALK 23:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Heart Bazaar
I see you deleted completely the article on Japanese rock group Heart Bazaar. In terms of "notability", the fact that the group has a number of albums on a major label and has had mega-staar Ringo Sheena join as a guest artist on their album would seem to be notable to me. I frankly do not see the point in deleting accurate information about a subject regarding which little information is available in the English language. Could you please confirm why the universe is a better place having deleted a record of an important band (albeit in Japan) completely? It continues to remain on the Japanese Wikipedia page; if you are not knowledgable regarding the subject and unsure of relevance, I would be happy to provide additional information to you on request. In the meanwhile, could you kindly return the article, unless extremely important reasons for saving the bandwith exist?
Look forward to your response, not a "flame", if possible.
--eastend —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC).
Equally Shared Parenting Marriage
Jim - You deleted the page "Equally Shared Parenting Marriage" that I created saying (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): lacks references, no country indicated in text)
The significance of equally shared parenting marriage is that it is distinct from the other types of parenting that I mentioned, which have Wikipedia pages (such as "Shared Parenting"). Jim Wales has asked for more women contributors and more content on child care. This is highly relevant to that. I was planning to fill in more information tomorrow.
I also listed a number of references (both published books and articles with web addresses), but I was not able to get them embedded in the footnotes. They just need to be placed there.
I can add the United States as the reference for the statistic on 49% of marriages. They also occur in other countries, though.
Could you reinstate? Where is the text for me to edit this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndickinson1 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
ATKV
Hi Jim,
I think the ATKV article is ready to post, could you please have a look at it? Unfortunately the ATKV did not respond to any of my emails regarding membership and turnover, I think it may be because I included the controversy section... Hopefully you agree that it meets notability requirements regardless.
Thanks for all your help.
Kind regards,
Bertus Esterhuysen 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Main page appearance: St Nicholas, Blakeney
This is a note to let the main editors of St Nicholas, Blakeney know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 21, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
St Nicholas is the Anglican parish church of Blakeney, Norfolk in the deanery of Holt and the Diocese of Norwich. It stands just inland of and about 30 m (100 ft) above the small port. Of the original 13th-century building only the chancel remains, the rest having been rebuilt in the prosperous 15th century; the chancel may have survived owing to its link to the nearby friary. Unusual architectural features include a second tower, used as a beacon, at its east end, a stepped seven-light window in the chancel, and a hammerbeam roof in the nave. Much of the original church furniture was lost in the Reformation, but a late-Victorian restoration recreated something of the original appearance, as well as repairing and refacing the building. Nine Arts and Crafts windows by James Powell and Sons are featured on the east and south sides of the church, and the north porch has two modern blue-themed windows. St Nicholas contains some notable memorials, including several plaques for the Blakeney lifeboats and their crews, and much pre-Reformation graffiti, particularly depictions of ships. (more...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Harvey Benge
I've finished rewriting the Benge article; see User:Goodvac/benge. Goodvac (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
CC4
Dear Jim, Why exactly did you Delete the Cryptic Collection Vol. 4 page? It IS significant to the Twiztid Discography. It's a noteworthy compilation album by a noteworthy (known internationally and successfull) group. so, WHY did you feel it should be deleted. Now, I notice that you cited A9. The album itself was released in mid August. You deleted the article LESS than one month after it's release. How is that justifiable? I believe your deletion of said article was hasty and unnecessary. Furthermore, I don't see any articles concerning albums released by "mainstream" artists being deleted. Perhaps the deletion was due to bias (just stating how it seems)? please restore the aforementioned article immediately. Thank you and have a nice day.
- I've replied on your talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Birds articles
I just wanted to contact you about the birds articles you reverted. Reverting my bot to display the Texas banner rather than WPUS and TX is counter productive since Texas is a supported project of WPUS now. I also think that if the birds project doesn't want to tag redirects that's their business but please don't detag them for us. --Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
Deleting a Page
Hi, why did you delete my page on Lina Mroue? Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark2357 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
Why did you delete my page on Shared Care Pathology - you put possible copyright infringement for derby hospitals, but how is it copyright it is linking to the Derby hopsitals pages and giving them credit? How can I get the page back up? Thank, Mark.
Hi Jim, — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkLivingstonNHS (talk • contribs) 13:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your help on ATKV! I started User:Bertus Esterhuysen/Kimleigh Chemicals a while back, but I want to delete the page. How do I do this? Every time I google my name this page and the others that I am working on pops up - I don't mid if I know its going somewhere but Kimleigh is nowhere. I think I can better use my time working on Ulmer and some other new projects than try and save something that is not going to meet notability guidelines.
Kind regards,
Bertus Esterhuysen 09:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jim! Bertus Esterhuysen 09:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertus Esterhuysen (talk • contribs)
Hello, please clarify your reasons for deletion of the article about Greenstate Industrial Park? I see, that you labeled it as the advertising, but as far as I look other articles about industrial parks there is no difference in description with my contribution. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenestate park (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jimfbleak, My page on Gulfam Khan was deleted wonder why? Gulfam Khan is a famous Indian television and film celebrity, and has huge fan following, i have checked and i dont think the article violates any of the wikipedia rules unless you think something pl. let me know i request you to pl. consider reinstating the article, Thanks Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajj35 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Great work on the "Mark Satin" bio!
|
The Helping Hands Barnstar | |
| Dear Dank, Brianboulton, Ealdgyth, Ed, Jimfbleak, Nikkimaria, and Noleander, - I could not have brought the Mark Satin bio up to Featured Article status without the unique contributions (not to mention tact and patience) of each of you. I am probably two to three times your age, and not at home with this technology. But working with you gave me a glimpse of a beautiful 21st century world in which individual initiative, collectively honed, can produce socially (in)valuable work that is also first-rate. God bless! - Babel41 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Common Tern
Overall it looks good, but a fast look reveals a number of issues that I would suggest are resolved before it gets the FAC stamp of approval. It is quite US/Euro centric and this results in a few inaccuracies/omissions. In some matters (breeding behavior and appearance, etc) there are good arguments for US/Euro centrism, but in other matters (non-breeding range, non-breeding appearance, etc), it is recommendable to use a few more sources to counter the bias. For a number of reasons I'm not adding this (sorry), but hope the hints may provide a few pointers to other editors:
- Summer/winter terminology: Summer/winter, widely used in the text and at the map in the taxobox, display a distinct US/Euro centrism. This can easily be resolved by changing to the far superior breeding/non-breeding. You may also notice that field guides that cover the main "wintering" areas use non-breeding or similar terminology instead. When birders in Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, etc, see a Common Tern, it will usually be the non-breeding "winter" plumage during their summer (South Hemisphere Summer = North Hemisphere Winter). It just doesn't make sense to call something you see in the summer the winter plumage. "1st winter/summer" is equally problematic, and it can be replaced by 1st basic (= Humphrey-Parkes terminology), following the lead of many guides that deal with this species in the Southern Hemisphere, such as the field guide to Peru (already among citations), Birds of Chile (Jaramillo et al., 2003) and most South African guides.
- Distribution: Several major non-br. areas in the Americas are not marked on the map (not to be confused with regions that purely are transient, although there are several regions where both transients and non-breeding are found). Along the Pacific coast of South America, it is a regular non-breeding visitor south to around Santiago de Chile, about 2000 km further south than the present border on the map (see e.g., pp. 130-131 in Birds of Chile), at the Galápagos (p. 56 in Birds, Mammals, & Reptiles of the Galápagos Islands by Swash & Still, 2000), along the entire Central American coast as far north as Jalisco/Nayarit and Tamaulipas (p. 308 in A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America by Howell & Webb, 1994, and p. 157 in Birds of Panama with Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras by Ridgely & Gwynne, 1989), the Caribbean islands (p. 292 in Birds of the West Indies by Raffaele et al, 1998), and along most of the Australian coast (see e.g., Simpson & Day's guide to Australia, already listed among references in the article).
The text briefly mentions that there are small resident populations in Venezuela and the Caribbean, but despite their significance does not provide more detail and the small yellow dot in the Caribbean is malplaced at Puerto Rico (earlier reports of breeding at PR and the US Virgin Islands are apparently misidentified Roseate Terns, p. 292 in Birds of the West Indies). The actual breeding populations are in the Bahamas, Cuba, the Los Roques archipelago and the Las Aves archipelago (p. 292 in Birds of the West Indies, and p. 310 in Birds of Venezuela by Hilty, 2003). This also means that the first sentence in the Distribution and habitat section is wrong: "All populations of the Common Tern are strongly migratory". Most are, but the tropical breeders are at least partially resident.
While it is true that the vast majority of South American non-br. visitors are from North America, the distribution section overlooks that there also is a smaller trans-Atlantic migration route, as revealed by a number of records of birds banded in the Azores and later recovered on the southeast Brazilian coast and in smaller numbers in northeastern Argentina, and vice versa (banded in Brazil, recovered in Azores – e.g. Neves, Bremer & Hayes, 2002, and Lima, 2006 [large file, bilingual, see p. XL for English for S. hirundo]).
There is a brief section in the wiki article that deals with accidental records, and it might be worth mentioning that accidentals also have been recorded from the Andes, Amazon and along other rivers inland in South America (see field guide to Peru, already among references, DiCostanzo, 1978, etc). - Moult: There is almost no information on moult. For example, why is there a dark wedge on the outer primaries and why is it absent for a brief period in their non-br region? (the explanation, of course, is that it moults the inner flight feathers twice but the outer only once, meaning that the latter are more worn [=darker] most of the time, unlike species such as the Arctic and South American Terns, as explained e.g. on p. 125 in Birds of Chile) The unusual wing moult pattern also appears to play a major role in breeding (Bridge & Nisbet, 2004, Bridge & Eaton, 2004, etc).
- Non-breeding appearance: The description of the non-breeding appearance includes one omission that can be seen in older European literature (where full non-br. plumage rarely is seen). Based on the current version, you would believe that a dark carpal bar only is found in the 1st summer [sic], but this is also present in adult non-breeders. Most field guides that include illustration/description of the non-br. plumage and were published within the last 5-10 years get it right with a dark carpal bar.
With the exception of the Antarctic/Common where there is a lengthy description, the separation of various similar species is also highly incomplete: No mention of "opposite seasons" and notable moult timing differences of Arctic and Antarctic compared to Common, no mention of the very different migratory patterns of Arctic and Antarctic compared to Common (Common spends the non-br. season on the coast and commonly migrates along the coast; in the same regions Arctic and Antarctic are more pelagic and less frequent at the coast), no mention of the larger bill of the South American Tern, no mention of the less distinct/absent dark carpal bar in non-br. and 1st basic South America, Arctic and Antarctic, no mention of the dark barred tertials of juv. and 1st basic South American and Antarctic (Common never has barred tertials), no mention of the notably shorter-legged appearance of the Arctic, and the "smoother, more extensive black cap" of the South American is only in the non-br. and 1st basic plumages (not br.). Pp. 125 and 130-131 in the field guide to Chile can be used as a citation for all this, but alternatively it is possible to use a combination of the field guide to Peru with various other guides (e.g., South African). In contrast, one of the few features that already is mentioned in the article (white rump of Antarctic) is highly unreliable because of the variability of the rump of Common. The only place this variability is hinted is in the section that deals with Arctic vs. Common, where it says the "rump of Common can be greyish in winter". In summary, whoever was the first person to make the claim that Arctic vs. Common is the hardest... quite certainly he had no experiance with the wide range of similar South Hemisphere terns.
There is also a complete absence of information about separating non-br./1st basic Roseate+Whiter-fronted from similar-plumaged Common (White-fronted is from New Zealand and Australia, though the present wiki article fails to mention the latter). Roseate in these plumages is covered fairly well in most guides that include tropical coastal regions and have been published within the last 10 years (even some of the more recent US/European guides have a basic coverage of these plumages) and for these non-br./1st basic Whiter-fronted most Australian guides are sufficient.
Disregarding the inaccuracies one could perhaps argue for leaving this out in a B-class article, but with the long description already present for Common vs. Antartic (revealing the lacking descriptions for other species), and the wish of raising it to FAC, this argument becomes harder to make.
Finally, it might be worth pointing out that S. h. longipennis is black-billed. It is already mentioned in the subspecies box, but in the Similar species section it just says "The bill of adult Common is orange-red with a black tip". - Random odd facts that may (or may not) deserve inclusion: They sometimes associated not only with predatory fish, but also dolphins (Bugoni & Vooren, 2004). The first wild bird where the influence virus was isolated was a Common Tern in 1961 (Olsen et al., 2006). • Rabo³ • 11:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)