Talk:British Birds Rarities Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	British Birds Rarities Committee has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
November 15, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

	Birds Portal British Birds Rarities Committee 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. Please do not substitute this template.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit Major taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae

To-do list for British Birds Rarities Committee:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Still to do Expand the material explaining respective roles of BBRC v BOURC Explain BBRC's structure/processes in more detail Include a potted history of the committee Improve lead further - current version is a bit of a first pass Work criticism into main text instead, as per suggested practice at WP:Criticism Review Dean 2007 & Wallace 2005 and include any relevant material Mention taxonomic scope i.e. mainly species but some subspecies and some either/or Mention limited assessment of origin e.g. some individuals classed as escapes Mention suggested seabird standards (see BBRC report for 2000) Describe format of report Mention stats & Naylor as pre-1950 source Done State BBRC's purpose more clearly Complete the list of BBRC reports Reinstate demographics section Find dates & references for all other former BB rarities (includes Red-crested Pochard, Kentish Plover, Pectoral Sandpiper and Melodious, Icterine and Yellow-browed Warblers) Add a note about the Selsey Gull-billed Terns and the decision not to review them Make mention of BOURC Create a stub for bird rarities committees Flesh out criticism section - single observers covered well; need more on seabirds; any other areas? Mention rejection rates somewhere - Lansdown 1987 p489 quotes 85%

I like the structure for this article -first thoughts are that you need to write a stub def for national rarity committees, to avoid a redlink in the key opening sentence. Conversely, I'd be inclined to delink most of the personnel unless they have articles - most are non-notable unless you assume that BBRC membership establishes notability. Let me know what you think, but I'm inclined to pass this anyway, unless any criticisms I haven't thought of turn up in the near future. Jimfbleak 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll create the stub def as suggested. Regarding the list of members - just to clarify, you're suggested delinking only, not deletion, is that right. My personal preference is for redlinks anywhere where there is a chance where someone might be able to create the article, as that encourages users to add content. I'd agree that a significant proportion aren't notable enough to deserve their own articles - membership of BBRC isn't enough in its own right. Perhaps we could steer a middle course and leave as redlinks those who deserve an article, although admittedly there's going to be a bit of subjective judgment creeping in there. I'm easy whichever option we choose, though, really. SP-KP 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just de-redlinking, not deleting - but your compromise makes sense. I'll have proper read through to see if there is anything to fix, but it may be tomorrow now Jimfbleak 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - delinking done. Let me know if you disagree with any individual decisions (whether to unlink or retain). SP-KP 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to mention the BOURC, and the lead is a bit sparse, with little hint of what is to come esp wrt the reviews, otherwise it all seems pretty good. Jimfbleak 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination

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:

A minor point - twice you say "currently" - better to give a date. Just out fo interest, do you have the BBi DVD? Jimfbleak 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, all points fixed, I think, apart from the lead? Yes, I have BBi - it's already proved useful in helping to source this. SP-KP 19:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Done some more on the lead - how does it look? SP-KP 19:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro looks better at first glance, I'm out all day tomorrow, I'll have a good (final?) read through on Thursday Jimfbleak 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, done final readthrough, fixed a few typos and I've passed it as GA well done!. To get to FA, I think you need to expand some sections as you indicate in the box above, but you're an old hand at this so I'm sure you realise that. One stylistic point - I'm not sure of the validity of linking all the years, when events in the BBRC are hardly of significance in the broader picture.