Talk:Birds of the World: Recommended English Names

Page views
(to make this graph work, it may be necessary to Edit the section, make no changes, and click the "Show preview" button at the bottom of the editing page; simply exit the way you came) —Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) • contribs) 21:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Birds of the World: Recommended English Names. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614045954/http://birdaz.com:80/blog/2006/08/28/gill-and-wright-birds-of-the-world-recommended-english-names/ to http://birdaz.com/blog/2006/08/28/gill-and-wright-birds-of-the-world-recommended-english-names/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413105313/http://www.worldbirdnames.org/history/reviews/a-review-by-steve-howell/ to http://www.worldbirdnames.org/history/reviews/a-review-by-steve-howell/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025091500/http://www.worldbirdnames.org/On%20hyphens%20and%20phylogeny%20WJO%202009.pdf to http://www.worldbirdnames.org/On%20hyphens%20and%20phylogeny%20WJO%202009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

review
The line in section: Reception, "Reviews of the book were generally favorable.[3][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]", looks a bit awkward for a couple of reasons: the first is that most of the references for the favourable reviews are to the book itself. I don't have access to the print version, and while it is conceivable the book includes pre-print reviews, their inclusion within the primary source needs to be clarified and preferably linked to original publication (if it was). If peer reviews state as much, then they should be the ones left in the inline citation.

Secondly, there is published criticism of the whole scheme's objectives, aside from their later attempts to omit hyphenation, and I think someone [else] should include that in the same section. — cygnis insignis 21:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)