Talk:Bird

Where are the crows?

The whole Corvidae family is missing from the cladogram. What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.14.71 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The crow family are just one of about 140 families in the order Passeriformes. The cladogram only shows the relationships between bird orders. To see where crows are follow the link to Passeriformes, where there is a cladogram of passerine families. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I'm reviewing this article against the FA criteria as part of the effort to check all old featured articles (WP:URFA/2020). The core of the article is solid, but I am worried by large body of old research cited and the level of difficulty. Specifically

1. The first two paragraphs of the article don't comply with WP:MTAU: it's too difficult considering the fact that the audience for this article includes teenagers and other people who have not been to university.
   • Can the first long sentence be split into two, to avoid the structure the laying of hard shelled eggs.
   • I don't quite understand what a perching bird is.
   • Ratites is jargon, the other examples suffice.
   • Endemic is jargon
   • in the second paragraph, ptetosaurs should either be glossed, or replaced with a lay description.
   • mya should be written out in full.
2. Gauthier and de Queiroz[8] identified four different definitions for the same biological name "Aves", which is a problem. Editorializing?

   Looks more like an ambiguity - "problem" perhaps being the potential for misunderstanding - would ...identified four interpretations for the biological lineage(s) that could be included under the name of "Aves." be a better statement? Shyamal (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

3. Despite being currently one of the most widely used, the crown-group definition of Aves has been criticised by some researchers. Lee and Spencer (1997) ... Cannot use a 1997 source for the word current.
4. Some basal members -> gloss basal?
5. though it is possibly closely related to the true ancestor. -> 2007 study, do we know more?
6. The integument evolved -> no idea what integument is

   Wikilinked; is that sufficient, or do you want more here?

   I have a strong preference for having these word glossed, hidden behind a wikilink, or made clear from context. There are differences of opinion whether wikilinking is enough, but I'd say no in the context of an article which such wide range. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

7. co-ossification -> Can guess what this means from latin classes only
8. These two subdivisions are often given the rank of superorder,[40] although Livezey and Zusi assigned them "cohort" rank.[5] -> what is common now? Cohort still due?
9. Depending on the taxonomic viewpoint, the number of known living bird species varies anywhere from 9,800[41] to 10,758.[42] Talk page discussion seemed to indicate all estimates are now above 10,000? 2007 study too old here, and FN42 doesn't include year.
10. however recent studies found higher speciation rates in the high latitudes that were offset by greater extinction rates than in the tropics. Study from 2007, still up to date? Definitely not recent.
11. The orbits are large and separated by a bony septum. -> Don't understand even the topic of this sentence

    Have rewritten it a bit for ease of reading. "The orbital cavities that house the eyeballs are large and separated from each other by a bony septum (partition)." Shyamal (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

12. However, one recent study claimed to demonstrate temperature-dependent sex determination among the Australian brushturkey, for which higher temperatures during incubation resulted in a higher female-to-male sex ratio.[86] This, however, was later proven to not be the case. These birds do not exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination, but temperature-dependent sex mortality.[87] Is a disproven older study due?
13. myogenic -> gloss?
14. Oxygenated blood then flows from the lungs through the left atrium to the left ventricle where it is pumped out to the body. citation needed.
15. A lack of field observations limit our knowledge, but intraspecific conflicts are known to sometimes result in injury or death.[110] -> More field observations 10 years later?
16. Geese and dabbling ducks are primarily grazers. citation needed
17. Feather care is now described in two different section, with overlapping information.

I've come as far as communication, and will review further if there is interest making this article shiny again. If the article cannot be improved via talk, it may be taken to WP:featured article review. We're never in a hurry at FAR, and willing to help :). FemkeMilene (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Femkemilene; we at WP:BIRD will take a look and work to make the improvements you've asked for. However, we've just been hit with a few of these and our numbers are limited, so it may take a week or so! MeegsC (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A week would be very fast :). We've got a lot of patience as we're trying to save as many stars as possible. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Great! We're certainly willing to do what is necessary. MeegsC (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I - and I'm sure others in WP:PALEO - would be happy to help with the paleontological aspects of the article too. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene are you satisfied here or is there work remaining? I will review once you are satisfied, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. We haven't gotten very far here; I'm still working on elfin woods warbler, Sabine's Sunbird is busy updating seabird and we're currently shepherding various articles through the FA/FL/GA process. Given the project's very small member numbers, we're kinda drowning at the moment! But it's definitely on our radar screen. MeegsC (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood (and sympathize :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)