Talk:Ornithology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Ornithology 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. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Birds WikiProject. |
|
WikiProject Birds To-do:
|
|
.jpg/60px-Nereis_succinea_(epitoke).jpg){kind=small} |
Ornithology is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | |
|
WikiProject Animals To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Untitled edit
I am expert. I specialise in Geese and Ducks and would like to help improve your Ornithology article, particulary with respects to Geese and Ducks. George 22:03, 30 Sept 2006 Ornithological observations can be quite droll, but given the right author and perspective, the study of birds can come alive. The writings of both Annie Dillard and John James Audobon attest to each author’s natural affinity for birding. A passage from Audobon’s Ornithological Biographies, describing the patterns of a great number of pigeons, bears a striking parallelism to a passage from Annie Dillard’s Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Each account varies in certain aspects of style and tone while agreeing on others. However, after examination, the bird patterns described in one may very well have been identical to those of the other. The interesting comparisons and contrasts between each author’s methods of describing the birds are reflective of the effects of the birds on each author. John Audobon and Annie Dillard’s rendering of birds contain some notable comparisons as well as some prominent distinctions. First, each account gives evidence of the excellent observational abilities of the author with specific and copious commentary by each on the patterns and behaviors of birds. However, equally as numerous are the differences in style between the two. For instance, the methods of observation clearly affect each author’s description. Audobon’s opening line, characteristic of most scientific accounts, describes the setting of his inspections, both time and place. Nowhere in Dillard’s piece is location described (accept the title). This shows the more technical nature of Audobon’s writing as opposed to Dillard’s artistry. Also, each writer’s use of metaphor is peculiar to his and her specific voice. Audobon’s metaphors and similes are short and scientific in nature, describing appearance instead of symbolism. “The air was literally filled with Pigeons; the light of noon-day was obscured as by an eclipse; the dung fell in spots, not unlike melting flakes of snow.” Distinctively, the extended analogy of Dillard’s composition portrays the beauty of the bird’s actions. Also, Dillard makes it evident that she is familiar with the craft of weaving. “They seemed to unravel as they flew, lengthening in curves, like a loosened skein… Each individual bird bobbed and knitted.” This achieves a more emotional effect than Audobon’s erudite comparisons. In addition, Audobon’s exact figures (“163 [dots] had been made in twenty-one minutes”) contribute to his mathematical description while Dillard’s approximations (“they flew directly over my head for half an hour”) reflect her opinion that exact numbers are irrelevant. The appendage to Dillard’s passage incorporates an aspect that is nonexistent in Audobon’s piece. While the introspective reflection logically follows her imaginative account, it sharply contrasts with the strictly informative description of Audobon’s passage. There are numerous similarities and differences between Dillard and Audobon’s descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.87.195 (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The "links" issue
This certainly needs sorting out. It seems quite odd that there are some links to organisations and not to others. Would something like a dmoz link at the bottom to ornithology sites help to tidy up the article a little. Equally the publications section seems to be advertising for some publications? --Herby talk to me 14:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Birdwatching
Should birdwatching garner an explicit mention somewhere under "Popular ornithology"? Circeus (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some feedback
A MOS issue is naming of headings and avoiding repeating the article name in the heading title. eg. rename the 3 subheadings under history:
- Antiquity
- (something sciencey?)
- Birdwatching
Remove 'ornithological' from 'techniques' heading.
Others I'll have to think about. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, have attempted another alternative. Made the other changes as well. Shyamal (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a good choice of article and could be a really fascinating FA. I get this feeling it could/should be alot bigger and more comprehensive but I don't know at the moment what else should be in it. I'll have to think on this one. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The science of ornithology has a long history and the study of birds has helped in the development of numerous concepts in mainstream biology. - the 2nd part of this sentence is a bit vague. Being more specific would help. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Birds have interested humans since very early times, and stone age drawings of birds are possibly the oldest indications. - oddly constrcuted sentence which ends rather abruptly. I know what you mean and it is a point which needs making and I too am puzzled how to phrase it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
