Talk:Elfin-woods Warbler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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?
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Wall Street Journal
This article was mentioned in the WSJ.
--Kalmia 10:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories: Wikipedia featured articles | Old requests for peer review | Wikipedia Version 0.5 | Wikipedia CD Selection-0.5 | Wikipedia Release Version | FA-Class Version 0.5 articles | Natural sciences Version 0.5 articles | FA-Class Version 0.7 articles | Natural sciences Version 0.7 articles | FA-Class bird articles | Low-importance bird articles | FA-Class Caribbean articles | Low-importance Caribbean articles | FA-Class Puerto Rico articles | Low-importance Puerto Rico articles