Talk:Zino's petrel

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zino's petrel. 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/20070610091409/http://www.ebc.uu.se/systzoo/staff/alstrom/Alstrom2001.pdf to http://www.ebc.uu.se/systzoo/staff/alstrom/Alstrom2001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed text
The following was just removed by DrKay after being tagged by a IP a few days ago as unsourced, even though there is a citation at the end of the next sentence.  and in Ireland and Britain there has been a large increase in the number of reports, perhaps because global warming brings increasing numbers of tropical species into temperate waters . Could someone check ''Harrop, Andrew H J (January 2004). "The 'soft-plumaged petrel' complex: a review of the literature on taxonomy, identification and distribution". British Birds. 97: 6–15.'' to see if it's supported, instead of just indulging what's presumably a climate change denier? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  19:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * as he wrote the section in question anc cited in originally. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  19:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sabine's Sunbird, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

note before March TFA
As part of WP:URFA/2020 we're checking old featured articles, prioritising those that are scheduled for the main page. This one was a nice read! I've got but three minor comments Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * to the accompaniment of their haunting calls that sentence feels a bit awkward, as you don't accompany a nest ..
 * what happened after 2010 in terms of conservation? this article says that the years directly after the fire weren't hopeful, but I cannot find the paper they seem to be citing.
 * Is it common to have that second system, or does IUCN 3.1 suffice? If ESA is kept, the second cite needs expanding.


 * Femke Nijsse, thanks. One thing with bird articles is that apart from status is that they are pretty stable.:I've tweaked the "haunting", fell free to improve if you don't like what I've put. The ESA is non-standard and it's very parochial to give a US status when we don't include the much more relevant European, Portuguese or Madeiran status designations. I've updated the status and the lead to 2018, the most recent assessment Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)