Talk:Common Raven/Comment

General question: How much does the big passerine taxonomic reassessment affects the article as it currently stands? Maybe it would be better to wait a bit?

I wanted to look at the other Birds FAs to compare structure and... well... No two of them have similar structures. I strongly recommend giving them (at least the headers) a quick streamlining while you're at it.

I'm writing this as an advanced ESL speaker with relatively little knowledge of ornithological jargon.

Intro and general references

 * I don't think these references in the intro needs to be there, although the statement about it being "the most widely distributed of all corvids" then needs to be sourced in the article.
 * Intro can probably be lengthened a bit.✅
 * Book references without page numbers are practically useless. See User:Circeus/Referencing styles for various options in dealing with them.

Taxonomy

 * This section completely fails to discuss the taxonomic placement of the species. What are its closest relative? Why is it specifically in Corvus/Corvidae?
 * Rename it to "taxonomy and nomenclature," or spin the common names in a section of their own. They have nothing to do with Taxonomy.
 * Is there a type specimen? - dunno, but it is the type species
 * ''I've sent a message into Tring asking if they know if/where a type specimen is located MeegsC | Talk 08:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"


 * "was one of the original species described by Linnaeus in his 18th century work Systema Naturae"
 * IIRC, that book described all species known to Linnaeus, whereas the article implies that weren't many. The assertion needs to be adjusted. ✅ - is that ok?
 * The fact "corvus" was the classical latin word for this bird should be mentioned (and probably also expanded upon at Crow, Linnaeus wasn't always very imaginative...) ✅
 * Maybe mention when "Common Raven" began to be used specifically for this species? Maybe a reference to retronym is appropriate? (this is where my background in Linguistics shows lol) -good point, may need a northern hemisphere birdo to clarify this

Subspecies
I'm always a bit iffy with sections that have only one subsection. Usually that means that said subsection is not treated correctly within the structure. And it doesn't look very good on the ToC. But that's only me.


 * "to Lake Baikal region"
 * Missing article ✅
 * "It is intermediate in size,"
 * Between what?
 * "similar to Brown-necked Raven"
 * Is the absence of article in this construction usual? (No) I know it is for Latin names, but I don't know for English. I'd still comment that Wikipedia is not an ornithological publication, though. ✅
 * "The neck and breast are distinctly brownish but obscured by glossy black when the plumage is very fresh."
 * This simply doesn't make sense to me.
 * Maybe link hackle somewhere? (although the actual proper article seems to be missing). It's a bit jargonistic. ✅
 * "a distinctly oily plumage gloss."
 * Lose the italics ✅
 * "and the culmen is strongly arched"
 * Link culmen ✅
 * "The plumage bleaches dark brown on head and body"
 * what does "to bleach" means here?
 * "the mountains of western China and the Himalayas."
 * I would think the Himalayas are in western China...
 * "most glossy race"
 * glossiest ✅
 * "than C. c. principalis"
 * "than that of C. c. principalis" ✅
 * "The bases of neck feathers are grey"
 * FInd the missing article.
 * "in Baikal region"
 * Add an article and disambiguate baikal ✅
 * "is strongly glossed"
 * Why not "glossy"?
 * "the throat hackles are well developed"
 * Why not just refer directly to their size?
 * "It is smaller, with a smaller and narrower bill"
 * Whouldn't the latter ve somewhat implied by the former?
 * "there are at least two cladess, a Holarctic a Californiann."
 * Ahem... ✅
 * "have split during an ice age 2 million years ago when much of California was isolated by glaciers."
 * Link huronian (assuming its the correct glaciation) (umm, wrong one by 1998 million years but I will look for a link :) )cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 04:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably a Pliocene/Pleistocene-era, but which one?Circeus 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've re-explained it. Hope this helps. The scientists are working with genetic rather than fossil evidence in this case, so I'm not sure if they know whether it was a Pliocene or Pleistocene event. Kla'quot 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "The findings indicate that Common Ravens from the central and eastern United States are more closely related to Common Ravens from Asia and Europe than they are to Common Ravens from California."
 * What about ravens from northwestern America? ✅
 * I recommend carefully splitting the claims from these 2 paragraphs between the sources they are from. Is that one claim from USGS or Feldman?
 * Does that applies to all C. c. sinuatus or specifically the birds from California?
 * Is this likely to affect the taxonomic status of the Californian crows? ✅
 * No. Why would it? Kla'quot 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "The study demonstrated"
 * "also demonstrated"? ✅

Distribution and habitat

 * "this species has the largest range of any member of the genus."
 * I think a source here would be good.
 * "the Holarctic from Arctic and temperate habitats"
 * Qualify Holarctic with something like "zone" or whatever?
 * "and to islands in the Pacific Ocean."
 * Can details be added here? whatever they are, they're too small to show on the map.
 * Talking about the map, consider having a better quality version made at Graphic Lab
 * Pied Raven paragraph is unsourced.

Behaviour

 * I'm also iffy with 2 section headers following each other directly. Maybe "padding" text acting as a summary of the subsections can be added here?
 * Also, this section is as much bout their biology as a whole as about their ethology. I say the header should take that into account. Also, consider

Diet

 * How can something be "highly" omnivorous? Either they are or are not. If the meaning is that they appear to show absolutely no preference (unlike bird X, as a comparison would be appropriate), then say so. ✅
 * "vary widely by location"
 * "from one location to another" or "depending on the location/food sources available"
 * "and serendipity"
 * "and chance" - here I like serendipity as it combines the idea of chance and luck succinctly in one word, which chance alone doesn't...I'll see what the consensus is.cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 02:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "In some places they are mainly scavengerss. They feed on carrion, as well as the associated maggots and carrion beetless." ✅
 * Link these sentence together. Probably a semicolon will do the trick.
 * "Plant food"
 * Feels wrong (though I might be mistaken)
 * "Ravens may also consume undigested portions of animal feces, and human food waste."
 * Even if that sources to Goodwin, I recommend it having a specific citation.
 * "Ravens store surplus food, especially fat,"
 * "Fat" itself can't be stored like that. Pieces of fat/lard can (or whatever the better term).
 * "hard pellets which can be collected and analysed in the laboratory."
 * Link Pellet (ornithology)
 * That list is... weird, and seems out of place. Why is it necessary to list random studies? Also, the "easiness" of studying their diet would be more useful with a reference.
 * Also, it doesn't seem to have any logical ordering.
 * Okay, the list highlights well the adaptability of the species, but then it should probably be reworked into paragraphs, and the "easiness" bit placed after.
 * "in California, USA,"
 * Why link "USA" here? You don,t link it under "Subspecies"!
 * Disambig garbage ✅
 * "Ravens are strongly omnivorous" ✅
 * Isn't that stated in the first sentence of the section? Same comment about being "strongly" omnivorous.

Breeding

 * I'm not clear what their potential age has to do with their reproduction.✅
 * "lifespans in the wild are considerably less"
 * "considerably shorter" ✅
 * "the longest known lifespan being 13 years for a banded bird."
 * "the longest known lifespan for a banded bird being 13 years." ✅
 * "Aerial acrobatics and displays of intelligence and ability to provide food"
 * "Aerial acrobatics and displays of intelligence, and ability to provide food"
 * Oxford comma FTW ✅
 * The entire last half of the paragraph lacks references
 * "Like many birds, pairing does not necessarily mandate sexual monogamy, and raven habits show fluidity in this regard."
 * Does that apply to the species or the genus? I recommend going through with "Common Raven" across the article. ✅
 * "its food resources will be defended against others."
 * Other Common Ravens or "others" in general? ✅
 * Second half of that paragraph is redundant with content of the previous paragraph.
 * "lay from three to seven"
 * "Lay between three and seven" ✅
 * "However, the male may 'cover' the young without brooding them as such."
 * Please State the obvious and say what you mean instead of unclearly summarizing.
 * Last and second-to-last paragraph should be merged. Also consider rewriting the last paragraph.

Vocalization

 * "Ravens can copy sounds"
 * "can reproduce" ✅
 * "An important early work was by Gwinner in 1964"
 * Consider rephrasing this ✅
 * "Some types are alarm calls, chase calls, and flight calls."
 * Reword this too. ✅ - though tricky
 * "Non-vocal sounds produced by the Common Raven include wing whistles and bill snapping. The clapping or clicking has been observed more often in females than males. If a member of a pair of ravens is lost, the remaining raven makes calls which were made by its lost partner in order to get it to return."
 * What does this do in a "vocalization" section? Rename it to "communication".
 * "The clapping or clicking has been observed" &rarr; "Clapping or clicking have been observed" ✅
 * "makes calls which were made by its lost partner" &rarr; "reproduces the calls of its lost partner" ✅

Social behaviour
✅ - ''moved to enlarge behaviour section
 * Single paragraph sections are discouraged by WP:GTL. Consider expanding/moving the content


 * "however young birds form flocks as well."
 * "although young birds" ✅
 * "In Ravens in Winter, Bernd Heinrich showed"
 * link Bernd Heinrich here,not in the references or further reading ✅
 * "to allow the juveniles to outnumber the resident adults"
 * The chaining of "to" is not ideal a solution does not easily come to mind yetcheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 03:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "the juveniles" &rarr; "them" ✅

Intelligence

 * "pull the string up bit at a time" ✅
 * "manipulate others to do work for them"
 * "into doing" ✅
 * "The wolves or coyotes open the carcass"
 * "The canines" ✅
 * "watch where other Common Ravens bury food"
 * "bury theirs" ✅
 * The last two paragraphs need citations ✅

Relationship with humans

 * See above about Behaviour

Conservation and management

 * "Common Ravens are a widespread bird"
 * Isn't there a less... grammatically paradoxical way to word this? I'm all for semantic agreement, but this is ridiculous. ✅
 * "There have been localised declines in some parts of their range due to habitat loss and direct persecution, in other areas their numbers have increased dramatically and they have become agricultural pests."
 * Split this sentence or better articulate it. ✅
 * "cause damage to crops such as nuts and grains or can damage livestock"
 * Oxford comma needed in alley three! ✅
 * "Towns, landfills, sewage treatment plants, and artificial ponds"
 * This one should go, though ✅
 * This section fails to cover properly the ways in which the species is controlled when it becomes a pest.

Cultural references

 * Neither Raven (mythology) nor raven banner are "main articles" to the content of this section. Besides, they are already linked inside.
 * This section fails to properly expand on the symbolism of the raven, either in myth or literature. It can and should be longer than it is.
 * I'm doing this - first para - black/ill omen/intro, then chronological progression from ancient to modern. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An idea to consider is to actually spin the results into a better Ravens in popular culture article while at it. If only because it's a bit disturbing when the "main article" has much less/more poorly organized information than the section that is supposed to summarize it.Circeus 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agree. I think the three subsequent articles dealing with similar material all need to be spun together actually but I'm trying to prioritise...cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Circeus out.Circeus 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)