Talk:Little egret

Untitled

The range information on this bird seems confused - the intro says it is found in Europe Asia and Africa, but then we mention it in the Bahamas and Australia - can anyone sort it out? seglea 20:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope my changes help - it's difficult to be sure of the current New World range of this species, since much of the information on this dynamic species is out of date. Its not in the field guides for Venezuela or Costa Rica. Also added size, incubation and some other bits. jimfbleak 06:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks - that looks better, and makes sense. I was a bit worried there was confusion with Snowy Egrets. seglea 18:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Egretta dimorpha

There should be some discussion of Egretta (garzetta) dimorpha, as it isn't listed as a full species, but the differences between little and dimorphic egrets are quite substantial (greater frequency of dark morph, yellow lore year-round). Personally I would be in favour of giving dimorphic egrets their own page, which I am happy to write. Are there any other opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sambostock (talk • contribs) 07:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Vandalism

The IP address 24.205.155.154 had placed "This bird does not exist it is made up from fairy tales" into the References section. Removed vandalism, but that was the IP's second use of Wiki ever - the last time it did anything before was early december, so I don't think this was any more than a random attack. Hopefully it won't happen again!

Picture Discussion

This needs a place somewhere; I have a better one for the taxobox.

Please discuss. (See caption.)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Little egret/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Atsme (talk · contribs) 21:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Checked with Earwig's Copvio Detector, and while I realize statements of fact and much of the US government's work is not copyrightable, the detector brought back a very high positive result. This needs to be addressed. @Atsme: This is a false positive. Both the sites that come up as copyvios with Earwig (Thai National Parks & Birds of Europe) state at the bottom of the page that their source is Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC) I agree, the external site are copying this article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Confirmed. Thank you. I completely missed the mirror check.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well written, informative, accurate and top-shelf GA quality. Articles like this one are often mirrored on the internet and in RS which may trick a GA reviewer into thinking there may be a copyvio if the reviewer is not paying close enough attention.

Comments

@Cwmhiraeth:, before I start marking up the review, I thought maybe you might want to update the sections Distribution and habitat, and Colonization of the New World with regards to the similarities between snowy egrets and little egrets, the observed interspecies copulation, their overlapping range, and the broad expansion of little egrets along the North American Atlantic Coast. See: Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology, chapter title=Sympatric Foraging of Little Egrets and Snowy Egrets in Barbados, West Indies, author=James A. Kushan, Vol 30, No. 4, Dec, 2007, pp 609-612, Published by: Waterbird Society, Stable URL: [1] Atsme^📞📧 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review. I have added the information as suggested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• A drive-by comment, galleries are discouraged if they do not serve a specific purpose, you could incorporate the best images into the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. I never like removing a gallery, but am happy to do so when asked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

They are mainly present in short articles that have been filled with images by various uploaders over the years, then someone comes along and dumps them in a gallery to make the layout less cluttered. So they're rarely there for a purpose. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review and your kind comments, Atsme. And thanks also to the other folks that contributed to the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)