Talk:Greater rhea

Birds Low‑importance

Greater rhea 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.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

South America: Argentina / Bolivia / Brazil / Paraguay / Uruguay Mid‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Argentina (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Bolivia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Brazil (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Paraguay (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uruguay (assessed as Mid-importance).

Contradiction

I added the contradiction tag because these 2 sentences are in the first paragraph: "Farmers sometimes consider them pests, because they will eat almost any crop plant." "They do not eat most crop plants, but they will eat brassicas (cabbage, and baby chard and bok choi) if very hungry soybean leaves."

I do not know which one is correct, so could someone with knowledge of this animal's behaviour cleanup the first paragraph to clarify the contradiction? thanks. Davelapo555 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That issue has been fixed. Tag removed. Doo-dle-doo 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General quality

This article has quite a few inaccuracies and unsupported statements and really needs a rewrite. I've done a little, but a good bit more needs doing. To summarise:

Need information and discussion of subspecies, including conservation status, differences, and which are kept in captivity.
Lots of links missing – fixed all I could see.
Contradiction in conservation status... Is it "of special concern", or "only near-threatened", or is near-threatened not "only"?
I've changed "corn" to cereal, as it was not clear whether the American sense of corn (maize) or the British one was meant. The sense implied more than one kind of "corn", so I've changed it to the more general British sense at the moment.
Chard is not a brassica, it's a beet, so I've taken out "brassica" and left it as a list. Needs a ref though.
Need evidence for an unusually strong immune system. Either way, "incredible" is not the right adjective for a credible encyclopedia... It's also not clear how a strong immune system does relate to the stated uses.
Various other queries... We need to know more about the patenting of use as an energy supplement (how can you patent a food..?). We need the name of the "American woman" and more details of her work/campaign, including how use as a farm animal ensures long term survival in the wild (as they are already farmed and kept as pets, they are hardly endangered in captivity).

If the food claims cannot be supported, it may be that a discussion of folk beliefs about benefits of rhea products might be appropriate.--Richard New Forest 09:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read in the diet section that their diet is "mainly..." one thing, but "particularly..." something entirely different. This makes no sense linguistically and should be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.78.27.10 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should have page numbers of books in the footnotes for easy of virifyabilty. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author

Why the author of "Family Rheidae" section in "Handbook of Birds of the World" is named Francesc Jutglar, when indeed he is A. Folch? Jutglar is the artist of this book. I have that volume.--Vicpeters (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --75.37.19.115 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it?

The article for the Andean Vulture claims it is the largest bird in South America, this article claims the greater rhea is the largest bird... which one is right? 66.25.254.123 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Andean Condor has the largest wingspan, and the Greater Rhea I believe is the heaviest bird in South America. Hope this clarifies it for you, and I will fix the Greater Rhea article. speednat (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater rhea. 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:

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) 06:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]