Talk:Slender-billed curlew

Commons

Wikipedia commons has no images of this species. Andy Mabbett 00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/birds/1615_07.htm, this work is linked in several PD images [1], it might be usable. Better than nothing. Middle bird I think. Dysmorodrepanis 06:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• It breeds in marshes and peat bogs in the taiga of Siberia, laying an average of four eggs, An average of 4 eggs based on n=1 sample size? I assume that this figure is a guess based on what similar sized curlews do, right? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that - presumably the only known nest had four eggs? jimfbleak 05:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Or the number is based on accurately counted but geographically undocumented nests?

On the subject, I don't think the number of eggs belongs in the lead. If that was really the only nest, the number of eggs could be mentioned where the Tara nest is mentioned. Otherwise you could say in the article something like, "Almost nothing is known about the breeding biology; however, the few nests observed had an average four eggs."

The article says the species likely to become extinct. I wonder—so many recoveries have occurred. In any case, that statement needs a citation (and GAs are now supposed to have in-line citations for everything, as you know).

"Morphology" doesn't include plumage colors and markings, does it? So I changed the heading to "Morphology and plumage". But I think "morphology" does include a lot of internal anatomy that (reasonably) isn't in the article, so maybe "appearance" would be a better word.

One paragraph went back and forth between "the Slender-billed Curlew" and just "Slender-billed Curlew". I think it would be better if it were consistent. I put in all the "the"s, since I prefer that and the rest of the article used that style, but you could take them all out.

"…an adaptation in curlew species that avoids the sexes competing directly for food." I realize this use of "avoid" is normal in Britain, and the article is written in British English for good reason, but this sounds as bad to us Americans as our "gotten" does to many British people. Maybe "that avoids direct competition for food between the sexes" or "that keeps the sexes from competing directly for food" would be satisfactory to everyone.

I think there needs to be a better transition between these two sentences: "The extent of its decline is also reflected in the absence of wintering birds at previously regular Moroccan sites. Twenty birds were recorded in Italy in 1995." But I'm not sure what.

I don't see stamps as popular culture exactly, but I don't know what category to put them in. You could call that "philately". Or "non-ornithological references"?

I think it's a good article. Is it a Good Article? You might be interested in a discussion I had at Talk:Crimson-collared_Tanager. I imagine much of the information requested there is simply unavailable for the Slender-billed Curlew, but maybe you want to say so. Or maybe not—there might be some parallel to WP:POINT about statements that are in articles to influence ratings. —JerryFriedman 05:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of Jerry's changes, and clarified the sourcing of the recent claims. Not sure about the stamp jimfbleak 06:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Stamps may not be "popular culture" but the artwork on them is - and that heading is both in keeping with other articles and allows for additional items. I'm happy for an alternative to be used, though, if someone finds one. Andy Mabbett 08:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible source

The Shorebird Guide, by Crossley, Karlson, and O'Brien, is viewable at Amazon. This seems to be an identification guide to the shorebirds on the ABA list. The account of the Slender-billed Curlew has some information that's not in this article, mostly about molt—if that's interesting. —JerryFriedman 03:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bristle-thighed Curlew which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo of a living individual

A while back, I had uploaded a photo of a living curlew and believe it would the best for the lead image, however it was deleted because of the ‘wrong license’. I wish to reupload it again, and I obtained explicit permission from the photographer when I uploaded it a while back. How should I go about it again? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)