Jump to content

Talk:Great spotted kiwi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleGreat spotted kiwi was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 29, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 31, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

To do

[edit]

Sections to do:

Then:

  • Spell/Grammar check
  • Nominate for GA

Shrewpelt (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominted for GA

[edit]

I just nominated this article for GA, but under IP accidently. Sorry! Shrewpelt (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Spotted Kiwi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Lead
Description
Distribution
Diet
Reproduction
General

A bit to do, but I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Great work and a nice read. If you were to take this article further, I would suggest getting a peer review before heading towards FAC. Although it's probably not essential, some more images would work well too. All the best with work on this article. Peanut4 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

predation

[edit]

I have serious problems with the following statement. Once the Great Spotted Kiwi was also preyed upon by the Haast's Eagle, which is now extinct. I realise it is cited, but the source is hardly authoritative. Given that kiwis are secretive and nocturnal a more likely predator would have been the Laughing Owl (or even an adzebill). According to Worthy and Holdoway (2002) kiwi bones have turned up in owl middens. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towards FAC

[edit]

Not a bad looking article. For FAC a few points:

  • I have fixed alot of units per MOS, as well as made many plurals singular - there may be more (singular is best unless specifically talking about a pair or group of birds)
  • Egg dimensions - also specifying speeds when kiwi is said to run fast.
  • Probably expand upon conservation efforts
  • Ratites are not a family, and may be an artificial group. Touching on taxonomy of the kiwi group in general (which should be in more detail on the general kiwi page)

Anyway, good luck and a nice read. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is looking awesome!

[edit]

It really is, illustrations are really good too.. cladogram, photo of habitat, range diagram, image of birds themselves - all very relavant and important. Nice and succinct overall too. Nice work! It's inspiring me to do some work on an NZ bird article myself..Kotare (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style

[edit]

I've done a number of tweaks on this article lately and on reading through it more I still think it looks very good. The writing style seems quite "minimalist", bits feel almost bullet pointed they're so brief. Some might say it lacks flow but on the other hand it's very succinct - it feels very much like it's been mostly written by someone with a scientific writing background.. Kotare (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map showing distribution

[edit]

Is wrong. Roroa can be found all over Arthur's Pass National Park. Last kiwi survey I took part in identified 30 odd kiwi in the direct vicinity of Arthur's Pass village itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.233.74 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Great Spotted Kiwi

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Great Spotted Kiwi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Clements":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 08:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Zealand Fairy Tern which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Spotted Kiwi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Lead
Description
Distribution
Diet
Reproduction
General

A bit to do, but I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Great work and a nice read. If you were to take this article further, I would suggest getting a peer review before heading towards FAC. Although it's probably not essential, some more images would work well too. All the best with work on this article. Peanut4 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]