Talk:Elfin woods warbler

Last or Most Recent?

It says that this is the last one to be discovered, but we don't know that! Wouldn't "most recent" be more accurate? Bazza 16:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I believe most recent is indeed more accurate. It will be corrected. Joelito 16:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it still the most recent (in 2009)? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

questions for author.

First off, fantastic work. Sorry I missed the peer review. Anyways, a few questions.

• However, as of 2005, it had only achieved vulnerable status. when I first read this I though it meant it had been endangered and had been downgraded to vulnerable.
• Thankfully for now the species is safe, as the majority of its natural habitats are protected forests. A species that is vulnerable is by definition not safe. Perhaps it should be made clear that it is not in immidiate danger.
  • I have corrected to state that it is not in immediate danger. Joelito 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• The section on changing conservation status of the warbler does not make it clear whether it is talking about the IUCN assesment or the USFWS assesment. Could you try and separate the two different assesments to make it clearer?

I have clarified the conservation status. Joelito (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, I may have some more comments later, but I have to get back to what I was doing. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

However, as of 2005, it had only achieved vulnerable status. Introduced species such as rats and mongooses represent a threat to the Elfin-woods Warbler. Thankfully, for now, the species is not in immediate danger, as the majority of its natural habitats are protected forests.

This seems a bit awkward to me. How about: As of 2005, the warbler was still listed as vulnerable. The species is not in immediate danger, as the majority of its natural habitats are protected forests, but introduced rats and mongooses represent potential threats. Matthias5 03:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Joelito (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Section order

It really doesn't make much sense to stick a section on distributuion between two realted sections discussing the birds appearance and behaviour. If you've used cite php, which appears to be the case, moveing the section should not affect references in any way.--Peta 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I use cite.php but you should have been more careful since some references use the <ref name =""> format. Also I was roughly following the section order of Albatross, the most recent bird related feature article. Joelito (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal

This article was mentioned in the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115756239753455284-A4hdSU1xZOC9Y9PFhJZV16jFlLM_20070911.html?mod=blogs

--Kalmia 10:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Update needed

While correcting a dead link in the reference section, I see that population numbers for this species have been updated by BirdLife International. They're now estimating 1830 mature adults, which is nearly three times what they had estimated for the 2000 IUCN info. This should be updated; the IUCN justification also doesn't match what is shown on that source page (the BirdLife International species factsheet). MeegsC | Talk 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some missing citations here. Is anyone able to brush up this article, so it can avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The two places that needed cites, and one cite that needed replacing with a reliable source are done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

To sum up - we did some cleaning up in late 2012 as well. Like many esoteric articles, it is reasonably well-preserved and the nominator was pretty thorough at the time, so my impression is we're in keep territory. Happy for others to comment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If there's anything else needed let me know and I will dig up the refs. Joelito (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sources to Further reading. Arendt et al. should be cited. The article cites two masters dissertations. I do not consider these to be reliable sources and in addition, they are not readily available either online or in major libraries and thus cannot be used to verify the information in the article. I suspect that the info is present in other sources. Aa77zz (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking but most online sources reference those two thesis. Joelito (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the lead too short? DrKay (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

URFA

@Jimfbleak and MeegsC: since User:Joelr31 is no longer editing, might you see if this FA is satisfactory (good enough) for WP:URFA/2020? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia: Happy to take a look. Will add it to this week's list of things to do! MeegsC (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much, MeegsC. See the instructions at WP:URFA/2020 ... we are not looking for perfection, just enough to know if a FAR can be avoided. If you find it good enough, you can enter a "Satisfactory" comment at the URFA page. If you find significant work is needed, and a FAR might be indicated, you can add a list here, and put that diff at the URFA page. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: Can you please take a look at my list below and see if you think it's okay to keep this out of FA review for the time being? I don't think it would take too much to bring it up to snuff, but if you think otherwise, I'll list it. MeegsC (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No need to list it at URFA yet, as long as we remember to keep an eye on it. Joelito has been gone for a long time, so I don’t know that he will work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Updates needed

To keep this one at FA level, I think it needs a little work. Here are the things I'd suggest:

• The lede is insufficient. It's supposed to summarise the article, and at present it doesn't do that.
• In several places in the "Discovery and taxonomy" section, it's unclear which "Kepler" we're talking about.

fixed I think. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• It could use a good copyedit to clean up some clunky language.
• Various dated things (i.e. "as of 2017", population estimates, etc.) need to be checked and, if necessary, updated.
• Information from the items in the "further reading" references should be tied into the article, if appropriate.
• I can see articles on JSTOR and SORA that mention the warbler which aren't yet included in the references. We should have a look to see if they can add anything of value.

I don't think it would take too long to make these updates and improvements, which should keep it from having to go through a FA review. MeegsC (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Fish and Wildlife Service factsheet

MeegsC I have lost track of where this stands; are you finished working on it? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, sorry RL got crazy about the middle of the month. I've done about half of the updates, and should have time to finish up this week. MeegsC (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, and thanks for the work! Please ping me when I should revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)