Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Common Tern/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:32, 17 March 2012.

Common Tern

 * Nominator(s):  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is masses of RS stuff on this widespread, well-studied species, so it's been a matter of what to leave out, rather than my usual scratching around for suitable material. Anything missing, I ought to be able to fix (60 pages on Common Tern parasitic worms if necessary!). Thanks to Casliber, Snowman, Shyamal and Maias for comments and improvements  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * General comment: I tend to think that going from B to FA, by-passing the GA stage, leaves a lot of work for the FA reviewers, sometimes leaving the FA reviewers to almost completely re-write the article. In this case, I think that the article has been worked up quite a lot, and I will be interested to watch the progress of this FAC. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My last few bird FAs have all gone straight to FA, and haven't created any obvious heavy commenting. There are other current FACs by experienced editors which have also gone straight in  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found it interesting reading the Common Tern article. I have found a few problems, which have now been fixed, but I have not focused much on MOS. I guess that I found fewer problems than I might have done on an average FAC, so to me this seems to support the nominators option to bypass the GA stage. After a careful copy-editing from new reviewers, I expect that it will get a FA star soon. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * From the table: "The nominate subspecies, there is only limited variation within this form." This is not consistent with the content of the other boxes in this column, which have an actual description of salient features. I think that this entry should also mention the salient features. I think that it should also have an in-line ref, like the content of the other boxes in this column. Adding this will help to make the table a more useful summary that could stand alone separated from the text in the article. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Sea Swallow". Is which parts of the would is this term used? What is the history of this term? If this is an alternative common name (or an informal name), why is it not included in the introduction? Can all the other terns be called "Sea Swallow" as well? Snowman (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, it's used throughout the English-speaking world, but I don't intend to add a massive list of references for every relevant country. The name is historic, old-fashioned, and at best informal &mdash; I've never heard the term in RL. Because it's not significant enough to be a proper alternative name, I've debolded. Now This resemblance also leads to the informal name "Sea Swallow",[7] recorded from at least the seventeenth century.[6] As the text states, all the names for Common Tern have been used interchangeably for Arctic, I haven't come across anything suggesting that this name was deliberately used for any other species.  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Especially in the early part of the breeding season, for no apparent reason, ...": Would it be better to imply that the reason for this phenomenon is unknown, rather than imply that is is for no reason. Presumably, the mass cooperation and the energy expenditure would tend to indicate that there is a reason for this to happen, perhaps flock or colony cohesion or a tactic that enables the flock to know where to find the best fishing areas. Could it be because of the wind or weather? Could it be to avoid predictors or competitors? Snowman (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * changed to no known reason. If the experts don't know why this happens, for me to speculate would be WP:OR  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is there a lot of literature on this species? Should the article mention how much this species has been studied? Snowman (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see how this can be done without OR. It's a common species which occurs in most of the world, it would be surprising if it wasn't well studied.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. A reliable source might say; "It has been well studied, because ...", "The migration patterns have been investigated to find out more about bird migration in general", "its parasites have been researched a lot, because ..." Why did you say "masses of RS stuff on this widespread ..." in the nomination? Surely, there must be some explanation of what you describe as 60 pages on parasites. You could have omitted something from the article that is important regarding the vast amount of literature and research on this tern. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, leave this with me for now, I'll come back to it over the weekend  Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is actionable. None of my sources say why there is a lot of research. As I indicated, it's not studied because it's an ideal subject Drosophila, or has particularly interesting characteristics compared to its similar relatives. If you are an ornithologist in a northern hemisphere university, there will be probably be common terns breeding nearby, without the inconvenience and cost of heading to the Arctic or tropics, but that's unlikely to be the reason you give in your PhD thesis.<b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely, this is potentially actionable. I presume that you are implying that the reason for the mass of literature is rather mysterious. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The origins of the genus name is briefly mentioned in the text. The genus authority is Carl Linnaeus (a man from Sweden) and I presume he Latinised a word that became Sterna. What word was Latinised? Would Linnaeus have been aware of an old English poem or Old Englsih? The article could be read to mean that the Old English word "stearn" was changed to the Genus name, but I am not entirely sure if this was the word Linnaeus used or if he used a Swedish word or a Latin word. Snowman (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Linnaeus wrote in Latin, and he lists three earlier sources that used Sterna, so I imagine that it was already established by then. I'm not an expert on etymology, but it does seem likely that the word was latinised from the Old English or a closely related Gemanic word. The Seafarer was presumably itself derived from an older Germanic oral tradition <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?
 * I do not know much about Latin and I have not been able to find out if there is a Latin word for tern; however, it seems that "sterna" is Italian for tern (see Wiktionary) and very similar words were used by the Frisians and in Old English for a tern, according to the OED. The OED actually says that Linnaeus adopted this word for his name of the genus. I have tried to do clarify and tidy up this part of the article, and please make more amendments, if needed. Snowman (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this for now since all the links in the ref went to the Wikipedia article, which is not RS. I don't have the OED, so I couldn't fix it. Can you do so? <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. I probably did not test the links in the ref, which was . Snowman (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that clicking on the arrow does open the OED website. It is probably best to use the template format instead; . Snowman (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have put back the text using the OED template ref. Do you think that this is suitable? Anyone, with a council library card in the UK can log on to the OED using the card number as the password. Snowman (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, I've tagged to indicate that a subscription is required. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Chicks do not drink before fledging, reabsorbing water and excreting a strong salt solution instead." This sounds interesting, but it is seems rather vague to me. I would be interested to learn a little more about fluid and electrolyte balance in tern chicks. Reabsorbing water from where, kidneys, special salt glands, or somewhere else? Snowman (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can find <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?
 * added all I can find <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "..., reabsorbing water and salt from the cloaca, and excreting a strong salt solution from a nasal gland." The salt glands in the nose is interesting. As the cloaca is a hole, I can not understand how a hole can reabsorb water. From what I know about human anatomy, cells with the capability of reabsorbing water will be lining the gut and in the kidneys. Excuse me, I can be a stickler about anatomy. Presumably, the droppings that pass through the cloaca are fairly dry. It would be logical to mention the role of nasal salt glands in the adults too, if they have them. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I had doubts about the cloaca myself, now removed. It's clear that the salt is extracted by the nasal glands, that's now referenced, and extended to adults. I can't find a mechanism for the water, so I assume it's what you would expect &mdash; absorbed from food by the digestive system, cleaned up by kidneys, salt dumped by nsasal glands <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me, but if someone subsequently thinks that "reabsorbing water" is jargon, then it may be simpler to say something to the effect that the "chicks droppings are rather dry preserving body water". Snowman (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The chicks fledge in 22–28 days." This sounds incredibly young to me for a chick to reach a weight of about 110 to 140 gm and gain all its feathers in this time and leave the nest. I would be grateful if this is double checked. Snowman (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Four different sources all give figures in this range. Remember that these are precocial species, so already more developed than hole nesters when hatched, and they are fed on what amounts to solid protein. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would never have guessed that they grow up so fast. Parrots have only just started to get some of their big feathers at that age. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For obvious reasons, most species that breed on open beaches tend not to fledge as early as possible <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  12:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems logical that chick's that grow up faster will have better survival rates. I guess that dryish droppings would also produce a minimum of mess or smell at the site of the nest for predictors to pick up on. Do chick's produce faecal sacs? Do the adults take droppings away to protect the nest site? Is there anything about the adults keeping a nest site tidy and secure from predators? Snowman (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit about excretion, no point in faecal sacs since young are mobile, and tern colonies are highly visible so it's basically just a matter of not fouling the nest itself <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  13:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the incubation time in two seabird books now; one says "about four weeks" and the other says "28 days or so". These two book are saying something slightly different to 22–28 days. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are within the range, I've added a bit to say that 25-26 days is usual. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, that seems to make it much better. Snowman (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Territory. Please clarify that terns are territorial before making nests, and all the time while the eggs are incubated and while the chicks are growing up. The section seems to concentrate on prior to egg laying. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvious that the nest would continue to be defended once it had eggs and chicks, can't really see how it could be otherwise, but made explicit now <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  16:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "... and long bulgy legs"; I have looked at the pictures and I see no reason for calling the legs bulgy. In flight the legs seems to be neatly retracted to me. Snowman (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eek! it's nonsense. I copied this from a previous tern FA since the family stuff is common to both, must have read it dozens of times in two facs, still didn't notice. Changed to relatively weak in both articles <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I expect that the legs are strong enough, so I have changed it to "slender" legs. Snowman (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I used WikiBlame to find the edit which wrote in bulgy legs. It looks like it was added by a vandal to me on the Greater Crested Tern article. See this edit at the start of a sequence of vandalism done on 19 November 2008, the day the Greater Crested Tern was shown on the main page. Snowman (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "... it is therefore classed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List."; even if it had a large range and a large population, it could be classed as vulnerable, if numbers were declining rapidly. The "therefore" here is therefore wrong. A and B might be true, but here B may not always be true when A is true. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "... millinery trade caused large decreases in Common Tern populations ..."; I have got a little book on seabirds and it says that in the 1800s these birds were also killed for sport and food. Snowman (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Several sources say that the main reason for the massive decline was the trade in feathers and skins. Everything was shot and hunted before legal protection, and I've mentioned that hunting continues in some areas. I haven't seen anything to suggest that hunting was a major cause of the near extinction. Terns have coexisted with man forever, and their typically remote nest sites probably meant that they suffered less than more accessible and more edible species (fish-eating birds tend to be something of an acquired taste!). If you think it should go in anyway, can you give me the ref please? <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak  - </b> talk to me?  19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in The Guinness Book of Sea and Shore Birds. 1982. page 132, ISBN 0851123074, but I would be reluctant to mention sport and human food, if it is not in up-to-date books as well. Snowman (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have written in that the millinery trade was the main cause. Snowman (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Omission: Not much about the feet in the article - are the feet webbed or not? Snowman (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's so obvious that seabirds have webbed feet that it took me a while to find an RS source, added to start of Taxonomy <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Although, they do not swim much (according the the article), I wonder how useful webbed feet are to get around underwater, perhaps to get to the surface again, when they dive underwater to catch fish. Is the article implying that they do not swim on the surface much, swim underwater much, or neither. If use of webbed feet is to be included, I suspect that more details are needed of what they use their webbed feet for, or perhaps the bit about not swimming much could be left out. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the swimming comment. They don't use their feet for anything related to them being webbed, it's just an evolutionary feature common to most seabirds, even those that don't swim. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware that the appendix is considered to be evolutionary remnant in humans, but I am sceptical that an external feature like webbed feet would be an evolutionary remnant in seabirds. I think that a bird that spends a lot of time in the air would soon loose webbed feet shedding weight, if they were not useful for something. Surely, web feet would be useful for launching from the sea surface to gain as much upward thrust as possible, in a similar way that a parrot jumps when launching from a solid surface. I also would guess that it would be handy for a seabird that feeds on fish to be able to use webbed feet to swim (under water or on water). I guess that it is probably wise to remove hints of use of webbed from the article and I suspect there there has not been much research on the use of webbed feet by Common Terns. Nevertheless, it might make an interesting topic on the genus or family page. Snowman (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Omission: How long do adults feed fledged chicks? Snowman (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, added to para 3 of Breeding <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Omission: About their sleep: Where do they sleep? Do they have preferred night time roosts? Do they ever sleep in flight? Snowman (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * last sentence of habitat tweaked to clarify In addition to natural beaches and rocks, boats, buoys and piers are often used both as perches and night-time roosts. AFAIK, Common Swift is the only species that sleeps in flight. That's so unusual that I think it's redundant to say that a bird doesn't do so. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  10:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "On hot days the incubating parent may fly to water to wet its belly feathers before returning to the eggs, thus affording the eggs some cooling.[4]"; there is nothing about this in reference 4, at least on the webpage that the link in the reference opens. However, this looks like the correct source, which I found after being puzzled and doing some searching for it. After a quick check, I think that most of the 13 in-line references to reference 4 have no information about the respective content in the article on that particular webpage. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've linked to the introduction page and specifically said that a subscription is needed for full access. As it happens, for reasons that are not entirely clear, all the content for this species is currently available, but I don't know how long that will be for so I don't want to create lots of links to subpages that might become inaccessible. If it is available, the full content can be reached from the introduction page. Arctic Tern illustrates the problem. AFAIK, this is the normal way of dealing with subscription sites <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see your point of view. I welcome other readers views. Have other readers been puzzled when they attempt to verify something in reference 4? Snowman (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jim, I have the printed version of this. Let me know if you want to use a page number instead. MeegsC | Talk 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think the present arrangement at least gives a gateway to content which can be used while access persists. If it becomes an issue, I'll take up your kind offer, but obviously there won't be any url at all then <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it seems sensible to leave the in-line references to reference 4 as they are, in view of possible temporary access to many webpages about the Common Tern. I do not know the guidelines about what url to use, but I think this issue need not be a problem for FA, unless other readers find verification a puzzle. An explanatory note in the main ref=name tag might be helpful, but unconventional. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the Template:Cite book does allow for a url, so I think that page numbers and a url could go in the book cite. Snowman (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of changing to a book cite is that there is no requirement to give a url, so the problem of subpage accessibility goes away. I'd rather not go down that route unless it becomes an issue, since the current referencing, although not ideal, gives more transparency while free access lasts. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Impression. I edit bird articles and I have edited this article, so I may have a conflict of interest in commenting on this article; however, I have tried to be as objective as I can. At this juncture, I am not aware of any major problems in this article. I think that this article has essentially reached FA status; however, prior to the FA star being awarded, I think the article needs new reviewers or new copy-editors to focus on the text and MOS, partly because this article has had few reviewers having bypassed the GA stage. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support (moral or otherwise as a member of wikiproject birds) on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. I've read this a few times and it's come together very well. I can't see any clangers but fresher eyes than mine are always good.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for support and tweak <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Media Review
 * All images are taken from Commons
 * All images have appropriate attribution, source link and copyright information
 * Video and audio have appropriate attribution, source link and copyright information
 * - Lemurbaby (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  from Lemurbaby (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain or link to something to explain what a "failed breeder" is, for laymen readers?
 * "often replacing at least some two, occasionally three times in a year" - doesn't quite flow and could benefit from rewording.
 * "The visible difference in feather age is accentuated in the ultraviolet reflectance" - do newer or older feathers reflect more?
 * I was distracted by the switching back and forth between using "the" before a tern species or not using it. What is the system you're using? Consistency will be key with this.
 * "These adaptations are understandable for a bird living in an unstable, wind-blown and tidal environment" - Can you reword this to exclude "understandable" so it doesn't come across as a value judgment?
 * Varela ref not in template.
 * "American mink is a serious predator" - is there a better word than "serious"?
 * "Tapeworms of the family Cyclophyllidea are also a possibility." - reword
 * I'm seeing some refs provide first name middle initial, and others first and middle initial. Can you pick one and use it consistently?
 * Did a copy edit - take a look to make sure I didn't alter or remove meaning
 * Thanks for review and helpful copyedit. I've followed most of your suggestions here. I don't think it's a requirement to use a template for any or all of the references as long as they present consistently, and in the case of Varela, where it's a chapter in a book which is a collection of articles, it's hard to see what template would work (which is why I haven't used one). I give authors' first names if I know them, initials if I don't. In over 30 FAs, it's never been suggested before that only initials should be used, and I'm reluctant to go down that route because effectively I would be removing information. The alternative, to find all the full first names is neither necessary or practical. Thanks again <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  16:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The changes look good. I still see a few instances where "the" could be put before Common, but that nitpick won't keep me from supporting the promotion of this article. Well done! Lemurbaby (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for media review and support, I'll have another run through later <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata
 * I made a number of copyedits, please review
 * lead: circumpolar redirects to subarctic; subarctic is linked in the next sentence
 * if subarctic and arctic are linked, might as well link temperate as well
 * "or all-black." -> no hyphen needed (not adjectival); there's a couple later too
 * suggested links: vocalisations, downy, habitat loss, breeding colony
 * should have non-breaking spaces in short form bi- and trinomials
 * link nape, fitness
 * "there are other confusion species" fix
 * "the intermediate plumage and calls shown by these birds is a potential pitfall." pitfall for what?
 * link alarm call
 * "Most winter off western or southern Africa, with birds from the south and west of Europe tending to stay north of the equator, with other European birds moving further south." needs a tweak, sounds a bit irregular to have the two successive clauses starting with "with"
 * link pair
 * caption tweak: "This autumn juvenile in Massachusetts has a white forehead having lost the ginger colouration on its forehead of younger birds" -> "This autumn juvenile in Massachusetts has a white forehead, having lost the ginger colouration characteristic of younger birds"
 * "first-laid" -> first laid
 * link buff; link Great Horned Owls earlier; caches; Ligula intestinalis; Schistocephalus, Reighardia sternae (redlinks are ok!)
 * "29,200,000 km2 (113 mi2)" something wrong with that conversion
 * "Some birds are hunted in the Caribbean for commercial sale." sale as food, pets, or feathers?
 * link Feminization (biology), conservation (?)
 * citation 54 is "de Wolf, P, in Best & Haeck (1984) p. 362." what type of citation is this, a book chapter? If so, should give the title of the chapter
 * I noticed several articles that could have Jstor links to 1st-page previews; I added just one, but thought I should check to see if that's ok with you before adding more
 * should Cuthbert 2003 instead use cite report instead of cite journal? Why is the title not title case like the others?
 * publication year for Lima's Aves do litoral norte da Bahia?
 * I had thoughts similar to Lemurbaby's about putting "the" in front of some occurrences of "Common"


 * Thanks so much for copyedit and review. These changes] fix almost everything. Apart from changing the case, I've left Cuthbert as is for now, pending your further thoughts. Cite Report seems to be intended for conference reports, not government docs, and my citation reads the same as the document itself recommends, except that I've spelled out first names and abbreviations in full. I don't put in jstors myself since it seems to be promoting a commercial organisation, but I've no objection should you do so, thanks again <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  08:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Feeling in a nitpicky mood, I went through the refs again and trimmed empty parameters, extra spaces, added a few Jstors link as well as some links to PDFs, and made a few other miscellaneous corrections. I think the article meets FA criteria and is of comparable quality to other avian FAs. Sasata (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for further tweaks and support. It's amazing how a few minor MoS errors still managed to survive to this stage. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.