User talk:Adityavagarwal/Archives/2017/July

Your GA nomination of Black stork
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black stork you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Request
Since you added it and I'm going on vacation, could you please correct the WP:NPOV issues in what you added to the black-necked grebe? Sentences advocating for conservation fail that test wholesale. We aren't trying to tell people what to believe—we are giving them the facts to decide what to believe. Also, could you use the name of the bird when referring to it? Thanks! RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 13:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just kidding, I reverted your edits to the status section for being erroneous. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  17:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just logged in. :P I took the information from IUCN, and the paper it cites too, in the Conservation Actions and the Assessment information. I think there were wording issues, and I saw the notification of the NPOV issue just now. Do you think the information should have been taken from a book instead? Thanks! link Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The source isn't the problem. The problem is how some of what you said (like saying it was switched in status in 1998, which is very misleading) was misleading and how you said stuff like "X should be done". I don't really think that conservation recommendations should really be included, unless they are novel and unexpected. And those suggestions should be made in the voice of the person who suggested it. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  19:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Would take care of that in the future. Thanks again! Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Mallard
Would you like me to email you some pictures of a book I have about the eggs so you can add the info in? If so, please email me first. Thanks! RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 17:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure thing buddy! Onto it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For the citation, see User:RileyBugz/Bird book citations, The Book of Eggs, and then replace the ### in the page number thing with 83. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  18:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Message was sent. Also, so the page 83 has about the eggs of mallard too? Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm saying that the page sent was page 83. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  18:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand now, my bad. Will check it out and include the details. Thanks a lot. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Riley, I added the information. It was really really required, as there was no mention of the sizes, as in contrast to most bird articles i have seen hence. Thanks a lot for that! Could you see if it looks good? Also, while I was editing brown pelican, it needs a taxonomy section. Looks like only that is left. I searched a lot, and finally found this. Linnaeus' original work. However, I do not understand the language (might be swedish, since he was a swede, though just a guess). Do you have any idea what to do? That might contain a lot on taxonomy, so I tried a lot to find the English version, but was unable to. Where do you think we could get some source? Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm almost certain that it is in Latin, as it looks Latin and all scientific work back then was in Latin. But, I don't think that you have the right page anyways, as I don't see the scientific name there. I suggest asking the reference desk for the HBW page on the brown pelican, and then checking the subspecies against the IOC birds list. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  18:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a tough language too. Also, I thought the same too initially, that the pages might not be right; however, on searching more, the same first page (p. 215) was being shown in other places too. So, I thought it would be better if I saw the English version. Yeah, would be better to ask the reference desk. Thanks a lot.  Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A note on that: the linked page shows Linnaeus' original description of the genus "Pelecanus", which he treated as including frigatebirds and cormorants. This is no longer in use and only of historical interest. Also see Pelican. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So, could you suggest what could be added to a taxonomy section in the article? Really difficult for this species. Maybe that the earlier definition included the other birds too (frigatebirds, etc.)? Really confused on this one. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't add taxonomic info from that, because there is no info about the species you want on that page. One can use HBW, although, which I think is a pretty good starting point. After that, you have to try and find relationships with other species: I suggest using Google Scholar and then typing in "brown pelican [or the scientific name, especially if there are multiple common names] phlyogeny". RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  21:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black stork
The article Black stork you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black stork for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Black stork at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Mallard copy-edit
Hello, Adityavagarwal – As you can see, I have completed the copy-edit you requested. I made numerous small changes; hope you approve. I just want to mention two things:

1) It seems to me that the recording at the top of the infobox labeled "Female quacking" is the same as the recording at the right side, near the end of the Mallard section, labeled "A mallard quacking". Was that done on purpose? It seems a little strange to repeat a recording with a different caption. Perhaps a different recording could be found for the second one.


 * Does seem repetitive. I removed that. Amazing catch! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

2) The second-to-last paragraph in Mallard begins with this sentence:


 * The mallard is a rare example of both Allen's Rule and Bergmann's Rule in birds.


 * Yeah, I used the Greenland mallard again, to amend the issue; it really was required to make it clearer. Does it look good now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I felt that, regarding the second half of the sentence


 * Examples of this rule in birds are rare as they lack external ears, but the bill of ducks is supplied with a few blood vessels to prevent heat loss.

for the benefit of the non-expert reader, more of a connection to actual birds and to Allen's Rule ought to be made, so I made an attempt to connect it to the example of the Greenland mallard, which of course you are free to delete or revise. But now, looking at the paragraph again, I see that, early in the paragraph, you say what Bergmann's Rule is but do not give any examples. In fact, the Greenland mallard is also a good illustration of Bergmann's Rule because, according to the description of the Greenland mallard a few paragraphs back, the Greenland mallard is larger than birds from farther south. I wonder if you want to use the Greenland mallard to illustrate both rules, or use other birds. I just think mentioning that "the mallard is a rare example of both Allen's Rule and Bergmann's Rule in birds" is not enough. I think you should explain how the mallard is an example of both rules, either using the Greenland mallard or other mallards, and making the connection to each rule clear. Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Such a wonderful copy-editing of the article. Thank you very much, Corinne! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And now for the snake pit...
Alright, I got interested in this one and buffed it. See what changes I did. A lot of conforming of references etc. have added you as co-nominator. I figured ths was an easier improve than mallard. I also improved white stork some years ago. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just left you a message on your talk page, and then saw your message here. :P Would have left you the message here itself, had I seen it before. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

 * You should already have been an admin, I thought. Really strange that you were not. One question, though : What is the 328 for, in your username? Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Columbidae
Hello, Adityavagarwal – This article was easier than Mallard, so took me less time. I just wanted to mention a few things:

1) I took out hyphens from words you had hyphenated; the words are not hyphenated in WP articles, and I don't believe need hyphens. I left the hyphen in, however, in ground-dove and quail-dove. Quail-dove is hyphenated in the WP article; ground dove isn't, but if we hyphenate one, we should probably hyphenate the one right next to it. (I'm not sure it really needs a hyphen, though.)
 * Yeah, seems to me like there is no need of a hyphen in ground-dove. I removed the hyphens from places having "ground-dove", and it looks better, now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

2) In the last paragraph in Columbidae, you have the following sentence:


 * The range of the species increased dramatically upon domestication, as the species went feral in cities around the world.

Then, two sentences later, you have this sentence:


 * The species is not the only pigeon to have increased its range due to the actions of man; several other species have become established outside of their natural range after escaping captivity, and other species have increased their natural ranges due to habitat changes caused by human activity.

In this second sentence, you have linked the phrase "escaping activity" to the WP article Introduced species, which is fine, but isn't the same phenomenon inherent in the phrase "went feral" in the first sentence? If so, wouldn't you want to link at the first phrase, or, if they are really about two different things, perhaps "went feral" could be linked to a different article. Just a thought. I trust your judgment since you know more about this than I do.
 * Yeah, great catch! I moved the link to "feral". Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

3) In the first paragraph in Columbidae you have "New World Ground-Dove". Besides my wondering whether the hyphen is necessary in "ground-dove", I wonder whether "Ground-Dove" (or "Ground Dove") needs to be capitalized. None of the other individual bird species are capitalized in the article, as far as I recall. Well, that's all. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops! There is no need of capitals in Ground-Dove. Also, I removed few other capitals, for some birds. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a big bunch for picking it up for a ce. It was great that it din't cause much trouble unlike mallard. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Black stork
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Adityavagarwal. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex ShihTalk 08:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)