Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review. delldot ∇. 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• I think there are some issues with organization in the Behaviour and ecology section. It goes:

1. type of habitat
2. diet
3. territoriality
4. interaction with humans and life expectancy
5. 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?

1. type of habitat
2. interaction with humans and life expectancy
3. diet
4. territoriality
5. 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)[reply]

• one ((cn)) tag.

Done, it was covered by the citation at the end of the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I'll have a go tomorrow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general looks pretty great, I doubt this will take long. delldot ∇. 21:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on this review, I am most grateful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair enough, promoting now. delldot ∇. 04:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Delldot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]