Talk:Barn owl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBarn owl is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 2, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 19, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted

Eastern barn owl split off[edit]

As was discussed at the bird project[1], but not brought up here for some reason, some subspecies have been split off into an eastern barn owl species. It would seem this article needs some reworking, so pinging the FA nominator Cwmhiraeth, and Shyamal who brought it up. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at this again for the FAR list. It would still seem some updates about this split are warranted here, who recongises it and such. Also, it seems some unsourced text has been added since the FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been keeping my eye on the article and see little addition of unsourced text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've removed some, but there is still this sentence: "Other research tools include using GPS trackers fitted onto the barn owl allowing precise location tracking of the owl." FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple more references. I have just discovered that a student editor has been assigned the featured article Common starling as their article for improvement! Fortunately, they haven't done much yet ... Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Any update on who recognises the split of the Eastern barn owl or not? FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my region of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I think the article needs some sort of update, as was brought up at the bird project a few years ago. I'll try to ping MeegsC and Jts1882 (who are currently discussing similar issues at the project talk) then. Do you think the proposed split of the subspecies is sufficiently reflected here? FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of the world's main taxonomic bodies are finally getting together to hammer out a common list — about darn time! Unfortunately, it's likely to take a while. Fortunately, once it's done, all these "who agrees with what" conversations will be relegated to the past! I'll see what I can find. MeegsC (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe it's premature to add anything to the current text? In that case, I'll mark it as satisfactory. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020[edit]

Reviewing this version: This article could use some attention:

Prose
  • With seven instances of however, some prose attention may be warranted (see the top of my user page).
  • Lots of clauses and complex modifiers in this run-on sentence: Of all raptorial birds, including unrelated groups such as accipitrids and falcons, if considered as a single global species, the barn owl is the second most widely distributed behind only the peregrine falcon (and perhaps having the second widest natural distribution of any land bird behind it as well) and wider-ranging than the also somewhat cosmopolitan osprey.
  • Redundancy: perhaps fewer than two hundred individuals still remain ... (and we don't know what citation belongs to that clause, or what date applies)
  • Tortured prose, sample: In some areas, it may be an insufficiency of suitable nesting sites that is the factor limiting barn owl numbers.
  • Why does it have singular wing but plural tail feathers? except on the remiges and rectrices (main wing and tail feathers) ... switch from plural plural to singular plural
  • WP:OVERLINK, examine whether every commonly known country needs linking.

These are only samples: I suggest this article could benefit from a GOCE visit and some tuning up of as of dates, sourcing, layout and citations. If these issues cannot be addressed, the article can be submitted to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth? LittleJerry (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I listed this at GOCE. LittleJerry (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished my GOCE copy edit. I've tried to address most of the prose concerns here. That does not include the WP:OVERLINK issue. Most of the language seemed attempts at precise and illustrative description, rather than descents into gobbledegook; but I have tried to heed the concerns here. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I think the major issues have been addressed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On my list, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry, apologies for the delay as I took an extended wikibreak and am just now catching up.

I looked in here, intending to revisit my WP:URFA/2020 review, but I see that this Featured article is the subject of Wiki Ed (student) editing. @Ian (Wiki Ed) and Anonymouswisebird:, students are usually discouraged from editing featured articles. This addition is not at FA standard; whether anything there may need to be worked in to the article for it to maintain 1b comprehensive should be looked at, but would require higher quality sourcing and a rewrite. I see blog sourcing, and lots of prose and MOS corrections needed.

I can't keep every URFA/2020 article review watchlisted, so please ping me when I should revisit (after the university term ends). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, the edit was reverted. I don't see any other major edits. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry and Jonesey95: my apologies again for taking so long to return to this.

  • I was attempting to reduce the jargon in the lead, by moving the term phylogenetic out of the lead, and just state more simply instead that "There are at least three major ... " But when I went to look for how I could link phylogenetic in the body instead of the lead, I could not find any of this content from the lead mentioned in the body:

    Phylogenetic evidence shows that there are at least three major lineages of barn owl: one in Europe, western Asia, and Africa; one in southeastern Asia and Australasia; and one in the Americas; as well as some highly divergent taxa on various islands. Accordingly, some authorities divide barn owls into the western barn owl, for the group in Europe, western Asia, and Africa; the eastern barn owl for the group in southeastern Asia and Australasia; and the American barn owl for the group in the Americas. Some taxonomic authorities classify barn owls differently, recognising up to five separate species; and further research needs to be done to resolve the disparate taxonomies.

    Perhaps I'm missing it? If not, can it be added to the body, cited, and then the jargon trimmed in the lead?
  • "The shape of the tail is a means of distinguishing the barn owl from typical owls when seen in the air. " ... how?
The article already states that it has a "short, squarish tail" which is presumably different from other owls. LittleJerry (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when I should revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia I believe that segment in the lede is supported here in the body.

Molecular analysis of mitochondrial DNA shows a separation of the species into two clades, an Old World alba and a New World furcata, but this study did not include T. a. delicatula, which the authors seem to have accepted as a separate species. Extensive genetic variation was found between the Indonesian T. a. stertens and other members of the alba clade, leading to the separation of stertens into Tyto javanica.

pinging Cwmhiraeth, Jimfbleak, FunkMonk and Shyamal LittleJerry (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see … as a non-biologist, that was not something I could sort :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this article was significantly expanded since FAC by someone other than the FAC nominator, so it's a bit hard to judge all the new content, as it was never reviewed. If the new content is problematic, it could perhaps be rolled back to its original FA version. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main expansions were the updates on taxonomy. Perhaps we could remove the "nest box" section or reduce it to a couple of sentences/paragraph in "Conservation"? LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I confused it with another of Cwmhiraeth's owl articles I reviewed once (Eurasian eagle-owl), it would seem that Cwmhiraeth should be able to solve the issues here if she's around? Maybe holiday? FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the IOC position on taxonomy in this edit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, finished. LittleJerry (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The range map File:Combined distribution map of Tyto alba, Tyto furcata, Tyto javanica.png is unsourced. It doesn't match with the IUCN's 2016 map, in particular:
  • Our map follows the national border between Egypt and Libya: I'm afraid owls don't respect borders :)
  • Our map seems incorrect in the Sahara, in Central Africa, and in Saudi Arabia
A455bcd9 (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barn_owl&oldid=1192908462"