 | Little owl has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 23, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Little owl appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 November 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
synonym with Carine noctua?
editI knew that species as C. noctua... is it a synonym? --Extremophile 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've never seen it as anything other than Athene, but some old texts seem to have it as Carine. jimfbleak 18:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've noticed that Rodrigues Owl has other genus than Athene, but one of the synonyms is Carine. But also there are lots of results in italian for Carine noctua, so I´ve added it as a synonym... --Extremophile 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that it was initially described as Strix noctua. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
British Introduction
editThe article states "was first introduced in 1842 by Thomas Powys". As this blogger [1] points out, Powys (b1833) would only have been 9 years old at the time. In a quick search on Google books most mention "late 19th century". But, as that blog mentions, Yarrell’s ‘A History of British Birds’ (1843) mentions a few records before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.145.188 (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Little owl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I will take on this review. delldot ∇. 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is an error: the different varieties both overlap with the ranges of neighbouring groups and intergrade with them across their boundaries. Should this be integrate? Or could you explain what intergrade means?
- Its not an error. I have linked and explained it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- You think the subspecies list in Taxonomy might be prettier as a table? I'm picturing something like this. Up to you though, it would pass GA either way.
- I'll think about it. I'm not very familiar with doing tables. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think there are some issues with organization in the Behaviour and ecology section. It goes:
- type of habitat
- diet
- territoriality
- interaction with humans and life expectancy
- breeding.
- I think it might make more sense to juxtapose the territoriality and breeding sections, e.g. because they both mention the territory during spring. Interaction with humans might work better after habitat, which mentions some human-inhabited areas. Maybe just this?
- type of habitat
- interaction with humans and life expectancy
- diet
- territoriality
- breeding.
- I have put the habitat information into the distribution section, as is often done in species articles. I have rearranged the other paragraphs. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- one {{cn}} tag.
- Done, it was covered by the citation at the end of the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder if there could eventually be enough for an "In culture" or "Relationship to humans" section? Not necessary for GA but might be a good addition.
- @Chiswick Chap: Chiswick Chap is keen on that sort of section, we'll see if he is interested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll have a go tomorrow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: Chiswick Chap is keen on that sort of section, we'll see if he is interested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
In general looks pretty great, I doubt this will take long. delldot ∇. 21:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking on this review, I am most grateful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Everything looks great! I like the distribution section better too, I'm not a fan of short sections. Let me know if you want help with the table, we could work on something in my userspace. I'm eager to see this Relationship to humans section but will promote anyway if it doesn't come through. delldot ∇. 18:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have written a little for the humans section. Seems that in general, owls are dealt with generically, though Athene/Minerva's owl is certainly this species. Don't wait for me, but if I find more I'll add it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, promoting now. delldot ∇. 04:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review, Delldot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, promoting now. delldot ∇. 04:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have written a little for the humans section. Seems that in general, owls are dealt with generically, though Athene/Minerva's owl is certainly this species. Don't wait for me, but if I find more I'll add it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Everything looks great! I like the distribution section better too, I'm not a fan of short sections. Let me know if you want help with the table, we could work on something in my userspace. I'm eager to see this Relationship to humans section but will promote anyway if it doesn't come through. delldot ∇. 18:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)