Talk:Black-shouldered kite

Australian native rodents

Well, blow me down! How did I manage not to know that? Sources I have now checked say up to 15 million years' worth, in fact, and about 60 spp, some recently discovered. Many apologies. I'll make sure the rodent page notes the fact. seglea 00:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Distribution

"They are also common throughout Southern Africa." Is this true for Elanus axillaris? See http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?lang=EN&avibaseid=67E74DD0BE9B257F&sec=map Marj (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Vocalizations

Does it need a section on their calls - not that they are particularly vocal. There is some published info. Marj (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What I generally do is a few sentences at the end of the description section, either with a vocalisation subheading (lvl 3 heading) or without depending on amouint of info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black-shouldered Kite/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't link well known places (Australia, Africa etc)

delinked continents (chipping in to help) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't summarise the article—no mention of breeding for example, which is a major section

Expanded Marj (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• specifically to this species—yuk

had a go at tweaking that Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Taxonomy—although the relationship between the three Elanus sp are OK, it's not clear how this genus fits with others, such as mention of the subfamily.

Added info on subfamily though I don't have a reference other than the Wikipage. Marj (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Found ref and expanded. Marj (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do we know Latham's original binomial for this sp?

Falco axillaris http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU9820182.pdf (just parking the info till I, or Casliber, has time)Marj (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Added Marj (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Description—any weight data?

Added 291 grams (10.26 oz) Marj (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• hover 10 to 12 metres — needs conversion

done/added Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• BirdLife International link doesn't go to Elanus axillaris page—which gives a population estimate

Fixed external link. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but I wonder if it's better to use BirdLife which gives a population estimate? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Added link to population estimate page. Marj (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Global Raptor Information Network link doesn't go to species page

Added http://www.globalraptors.org/grin/SpeciesResults.asp?specID=8216 Marj (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Any known predators or parasites?

As an apex predator I don't think it will have any, not sure if has been investigated for the usual birdlice/nematodes etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, just a standard ask Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

2 birds were found to be infected with the blood parasite Haemoproteus in one study. Blood parasites of birds from south-east Queensland Robert D. Adlard, Michael A. Peirce and Rose Lederer Emu 104(2) 191 - 196 Full text doi:10.1071/MU01017 Marj (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• please check my edits

Checked, thanks. Marj (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• No deadlinks or dabs, images OK

Great!

• ref 1 — doi is dead, ref 12 doesn't refer to this species

ISBN given, ref 12 provides more information on 'grappling' - interesting but not strictly necessary. Marj (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed incorrect isbn, and added correct, working doi Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why is BESgroup WP:RS? It appears to be user generated, also doesn't refer to this species

It's an arm of the The Nature Society (Singapore) the reference is to the fantasic images of the behaviour, common to the Elanus kites. It can be deleted if you don't think it adds to the info. Marj (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• you don't need publishers for journals, just books and web-only content

Perhaps not necessary, but sometimes useful to know the journal is the mouthpiece of a particular organisation, the template asks for the publisher. Marj (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Lead - "it is a specialist predator of rodents" - specialization not supported in main text. (Shyamal (talk))

"Main text says "Black-shouldered Kites live almost exclusively on mice, and have become a specialist predator of house mice in Australia," not sure how much more support is needed. Marj (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, seems fine. I found a journal article using the same terminology, although "specialist" suggests that they would starve in the absence of rodents. Shyamal (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

May be more comments later, but this should get you started Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we ready now? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think so. Marj (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A good read.

One of the best Oz bird articles on all of Wikipedia.

I can certainly attest to the "... often following outbreaks of mouse plagues in rural areas". I do a lot of my work around the area of Dubbo, in central western NSW, an area greatly affected by the current (2011) plague. During the height of the plague in 2008-2009, there would have been easily ten times the number of these birds seen in the area than during the previous two years. Old_Wombat (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Old_Wombat. The plagues would be something to see! Marj (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Other synonyms

Parking this info here for now.

G.R. Gray (1843) gives the following synonyms: "Circus axillaris, Vieill.; Elanus melanopterus, V. & H., Elanus notatus, Gould." The Annals and magazine of natural history 11:189 [1]

Addendum: Oh, of course Sharpe's Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. gives a more extensive synonomy, and also mentions Gray's article. [2]

Pelagic (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black-shouldered kite. 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/20110227025012/http://www.wildlife.org.au/magazine/editions/2008/winter/wam_kites.pdf to http://www.wildlife.org.au/magazine/editions/2008/winter/wam_kites.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001064754/http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=52326 to http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=52326
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001064743/http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=52525&tree=0.1 to http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=52525&tree=0.1

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) 07:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

IUCN nomenclature

The last sentence in the intro reads: It is rated as least concern on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)'s Red List of Endangered species. This and similar statements are very common in good and very good articles. But it is not efficient communication. We cannot reasonable assume that the reaer knows the definitions of the Red List categories. Try to take on the perspective of such a person. I think she would interpret this as: There is an organization that has made a list of endangered species and it is very little concerned about this species. Probably this means that it thinks that there is a very low risk that this species will go extinct. This is vaguely correct, but only vaguely. And IUCN means much more when they say least concern, but this is not what the words least concern means in themselves. Also, this sentence is an awkward and cumbersome way of saying that. I guess this way of expressing it is chosen because it is nearly as precise as possible and also most probably true (safe to say). But again, this comes at a steep cost in the way of low intelligibility. The intro should be concise and have high intelligibility. Reading the Wikipedia article on LC, I find that the definition rests on a deep and convoluted network of supporting defintitions, so I am not sure what to propose as replacement. But here is my best shot: There is a very low risk that the species will go extinct in the foreseeable future. very low risk could be wikilinked to least concern. It seems that many ornithologists are keen to mention IUCN. But knowledge about the existence and work of IUCN does not constitute knowledge about this bird species, so this knowledge does not belong in the knowledge that this article has the task of conveying. The Wikipedia article says that LC means the species is not on the Red List. But this expression gives the impression that it is. --Ettrig (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ettrig the lead is only a summary of the information in the article - in this case it is in the Conservation status section, where some further information is given. It is a tricky request you ask, as varying what definitions are risks veering into OR, and I don't find the parameters that convoluted at all. What you are asking is an easter egg link, and I don't see what difference there is between "very low risk" and "least concern". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

(1) You are an extremely valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I find it difficult to imagine even how it is possible for someone to do what you do here. So your authority means a lot to me. Still, I think you are wrong in this case, so I will try at least one step further. (2) It is very common to think falsely that what is well known by oneself is obvious. Could this be the problem here? (3) The intro should be a summary, yes. But this is not an argument for writing long and with low intelligibility. In fact, this sentence is not a summary. The corresponding statement near the end of the article is longer (123ch -> 74ch). There is a motivation for this characterization, but no further explanation of what it means. (4) Repeating: That the information is from IUCN is not information about the species, it is only info about the info about the species. So, in the interest of conciseness, try to remove it. It is a least concern species. I think this doesn't feel good for either of us. I think the problem is that least concern doesn't stand on its own, it is sufficiently meaningful only as a reference to the definitions by IUCN. Maybe you think it is needed to be on the safe side with regard to truth. We dare not say this is the way it is, only that IUCN says so. If that is the case, then it should not be in the intro at all. Doubted statements are not important enough for the intro. (5) The original research worry is unwarranted. On the contrary, it is a very normal procedure in Wikipedia to rephrase what others have written, to paraphrase, but not to copy. (6) varying what definitions are risks veering into OR This statement feels almost like a restatement of my argument. Our task is to convey to the reader the info provided by IUCN (in this case). I say that the way it is currently done, it is difficult for the reader to understand what is really meant. You say that if we rephrase it, then there is a risk that it becomes so different that it states NEW information. If this is how you feel, then there is either a problem with your formulation (IUCNs) or with your understanding of what you have written. (7) If you don't see a difference between "very low risk" and "least concern", then it is unfair to call a link between them an easter egg, neither is it reasonable to fear OR. --Ettrig (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, you make fair points I must say...but I still feel weird putting "very low risk" instead of "least concern". But anyway, as this is an issue in all bird articles, we need to discuss at WT:BIRD so everyone can chip in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)