Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ruff/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 14 July 2009 [1].

---

Ruff

Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Ruff/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's named after a fashion item and has a weird sex life, including cross-dressing males, and the most promiscuous females in the bird world. Read this steamy saga, and check out the very detailed GA review jimfbleak (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - gong to support this soon, but I am slightly concerned by the lead, which is structured oddly to my mind. I think the lead should vaguely follow the same structure as the article itself, (which is taxonomy, description, distribution, behaviour, relationship with humans), tempting as it is to leap straight into the sordid details of its reproduction. I think the weight is rather tilted towards the sexual behaviour in the lead as well, it could stand to be slightly more balanced. I've watched the article take shape recently and overall I am impressed and look forward to supporting. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I take your first point, and I've now reordered the lead and slightly tweaked the text (too many "female" and a stray chick sentence I hadn't noticed being added). The article now starts with the more normal order (where it's found, taxo comment, appearance, behaviour, status). The experienced GA reviewer felt that the unusual mating behaviour was distinctive enough to need some description in the lead; there is actually only one sentence about mating, since the description of the breeding ornaments has to be there as the most notable feature of the plumage anyway. I think I need to keep some mention of the lekking behaviour, but if you are not happy with the current level of detail I could remove including a rare form that mimics the female - or we could wait and see what other reviewers think of that sentence? jimfbleak (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The structure is much improved. I'm not suggesting removing information so much as adding a little more to the other sections, although the restructure makes it look more balanced anyway. Perhaps the addition of some information on its morphology other than its breeding plumage - its shape and size for example, at the start of the bit where you talk about its plumage and how it relates to breeding. Also, wikilinks are rather scarce in the second and third paragraphs, why does corvids merit a link but not gulls or skuas? I've linked a few articles that might be interesting to readers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point on description, para 2 now starts This is a long-necked, pot-bellied bird. The female and non-breeding male have grey-brown upperparts and mainly white underparts, but this species shows marked sexual dimorphism; the male is much larger than... also linked gull and skua. I've tried not to overlink since FACs are sometimes criticised for linking words (common countries, familiar animals) where it's reasonable that a reader would know the word. Thanks for the other links, they seem fine to me jimfbleak (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment after more thorough read through; chick rearing is a single line. It might be worth spelling out what the female does for the chicks after they hatch. Does she brood them, if so for how many days after hatching. They are precocial, which to my mind suggests they feed themselves, can you confirm this? Does she defend the chicks from attackers or try and distract attackers, does she creche her chicks with other females? Do the chicks leave her as soon as they are able to fly? I think this needs a little more to be considered comprehensive. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This was raised before FA; the problem is that with waders much is taken as understood and not stated explicitly by sources. I've added they feed themselves on a variety of small invertebrates, but are brooded by the female. since that at least can be sourced. No indication how long they are brooded, probably dependent on weather anyway. With most waders, as you know, the female will protect the downy chicks at least until they fledge, but I can't source this for the Ruff. Crèching is interesting and is usually mentioned when it occurs, but finding a negative source saying Ruffs don't crèche is impossible! Its a similar situation with predation, it's only possible to list the predators of grassland waders in general terms, since they are unlikely to single out particular species. jimfbleak (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that the info might not be there, but I had to ask. I agree that if creching isn't mentioned that it most likely doesn't happen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion on chick rearing started during GAR and is on the talk page at Talk:Ruff#Chicks. Snowman (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - COI - I am a bird project editor( made a few edits to the article as well). Also not at the time I support there are two tags in the article that are in my opinion unwarranted, I am refraining from removing them until I have had more time to discuss the matter with the editor that added them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for support and comment on tags jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return. I noted DEFRA and EAZA, bt there may be others.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, spelled out those two, can't see any others except IUCN, which is linked but can't be spelled out since it's a template. jimfbleak (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments and moral support - have watched the article for a while and it seems to have shaped up again after a brief post GA dip. Have made a few copy edits but here are a few comments:
  • "Males typically winter further north than females" : further here is a bit confusing, actually they are flying less than the females.

Males typically make shorter flights and winter further north than females

• • "identifiable through rings or dyeing" - more general term "marked" could be used.

and individuals marked with rings or dye reads better and avoids the inevitable "how?" if just "marked" was used

• • "The staging posts are closer together..." - "refuelling site" may be more explanatory

Done - originally refueling, but GA reviewer said it sounded like unleaded or diesel (:

• • "and keep warm by shivering;" - suggests that they shiver all the time

and, when necessary, keeping warm by shivering;

• • "the only bird in which males have genetically determined differences in plumage and mating behaviour" is somewhat unclear given the later clarification. Perhaps the statement should be more along the lines of "well marked genetic (or perhaps replaced by heritable) variations among the males"

males have well-marked inherited variations in plumage and mating behaviour

Shyamal (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for comments and ce, let me know if not happy with my changes jimfbleak (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the claim of "unique" in having polymorphic males based on this paper which also mentions "... that alternative mating strategies are heritable behaviours that are associated with plumage colour polymorphism, dark males being aggressive and white males adopting a sneaky behaviour to copulate with females (Hill, 1991)." which I did not notice in the article. Shyamal (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moral support and that edit, I've just tweaked a bit to avoid "few" twice, and to spell out journal name. jimfbleak (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The ancient cooking recipe appears to be a "how to". Snowman (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand, the quote is from an old text to illustrate in an interesting way that the bird was trapped and eaten. I don't think you can seriously believe that I am giving guidance on how to kill and cook a Ruff - perhaps you been reading too many "how-to-keep-a-parrot" articles ;) jimfbleak (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please withdraw the allegation that I have been reading too many "how-to-keep-a-parrot" articles. Snowman (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

allegation? Did you miss the :) ? jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the ";)", and I now see that it was intended to be a joke. Snowman (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Very feeble joke, I'm afraid, I should apologise for that anyway jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is the spelling in the quote the spelling of the time or are there typographical errors? Snowman (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's as in the text, that's what sic means if you follow the link jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the sic does indicate a archaic usage. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No - sic means "thus" in Latin, to indicate a verbatim quote (with misspellings or archaic words or whatever was in the original). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I phrased that badly, I should have said that sic includes an archaic use. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked at it again and I think that part of the quote could be regarded as a how to. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that is stretching the meaning beyond any reasonable sense. If I quoted the opening of Genesis, is that a how-to create the world? jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article says that Ruffs are taken for food in some parts of the world, and the article seems odd to mention an old recipe without the recipe currently used. Actually, I think that the old recipe is largely irrelevant to the article and should be removed. Snowman (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait and see what others think, since I believe the quote supports the previous sentence and adds interest jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• You have started the quote as if it is the start of the sentence, so I find the quote incomplete and misleading, because the full quote regarding preparation for the table is

"... ;where

they are taken in nets, and fattened for the table, with bread and milk, hempfeed, and fometimes boiled wheat, but if expedition is required, fugar is added, which will make them in a fortnight's time a lump of fat : they then fell for two millings

or half a crown a piece."

Snowman (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've paraphrased that bit in the preceding sentence jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote in the article begins with "If", but in the actual book it begins with "if" and commences after a comma. Snowman (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, now "...if" jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Population data; "The annual survival rate of the adult is 52%, with no difference between the sexes; the survival rate for juveniles is unknown. The Ruff can breed from its second year, and the typical lifespan is four years." If only about half Ruffs survive each year, how is it that the typical lifespan is four years? Out of the Ruffs that reach adulthood in their second year only half are alive in their third year and a quarter in their fourth year. How is "typical lifespan" calculated? Snowman (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the 52% is the first year as an adult and drops thereafter, but the source doesn't say that that so sentence removed jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "typical lifespan" is kept in, but I am not sure if this indicates, mean, mode, or median. Does the ref make it clearer? Snowman (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Found something; on hovering over the "?" icon in the source website a small pop-up window says that it is the "life expectancy", which is defined as the average number of years of life remaining at a given age. I think "typical lifespan" should be replaced with a more precise meaning; that is either "life expectancy" or "average lifespan". I think that the source is not clear on this, because the website static text says "typical lifespan" and the pop-up window says "life expectancy". Note the ref says that four years is the life expectancy of the birds that reach maturity, so, if the birds reach maturity at one year and their life expectancy at that juncture is four years, then they live an average of five years. Snowman (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Life expectancy is calculated using -1/ln(sr) and in this case the survival ratio for adults is 0.52 and so that comes up to about 1.5. Since the information is lacking for juveniles (in really detailed studies, you would integrated the area under the survival curve) this value is added to the average breeding age of 2 and that seems to match at the level of precision one can expect for such values. "Typical lifespan" seems like a fairly good term for "life expectancy" and the BTO site usage should be considered as quite reliable (thanks to the likes of Colin Bibby) Shyamal (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks Shyamal, that's a better summary than I could have given jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

-1/ln(sr) used in a reply above is jargon which I do not understand. Snowman (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The BTO website has small pop-up boxes to help with the explanation. I think that "Typical lifespan" as used in the wiki page is not adequately explained by supporting text or pop-up boxes. Snowman (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With the latest amendment the line reads "The Ruff can breed from its second year, and the [[Life expectancy|typical lifespan]] is four years, ...", which I find confusing. Life expectancy is the number of years of life expected from a certain age, and typical lifespan is an unscientific expression regarding something about total lifespan. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have added a new reference. The BTO site does make it clear that this "typical lifespan"="average lifespan" and that is the same as "life expectancy". Shyamal (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that is fixed now and the new amendment is much better. I wiki-linked "Life expectancy" above to show clearly that life expectancy is the average number of years of life remaining at a given age, which is not necessarily the same as total lifespan. The BTO website page that was linked says with a pop-up window "Life expectancy of a bird reaching breeding age", so on this webpage the life expectancy given is defiantly not the total life span. It might also be clear on this webpage. The new ref used is much better too and says "and mean life span for ruffs past the chick stage has been estimated at 4.4 years". The linked page "Life expectancy" is not very good for "mean life span", but that is not the fault of this page. Snowman (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• The problematic phrase "refuelling site" has been returned to the article. The jargon phrase "staging areas" also occurs in another part of the article. Better more descriptive phrases could be used. Snowman (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to take refuelling out and then asked to put it back. The meaning is obvious, so I'll leave as is, staging changed to refuelling. jimfbleak (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I emphasise with your predicament. Nevertheless, I note that the GA reviewer objected "refuelling" that has now been returned to the article. Snowman (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just rechecked and "refuelling" seems to be perfectly fit for use even in scientific papers. (See Google Scholar search)Shyamal (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't think it's enough of an issue to change yet again, since the meaning is obvious jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Primary sources; I have added some "primary source claim" tags where the article appears to be a the cutting edge of new science. I am not sure where some other scientific claims have come from, so I have added some "citation needed" tags. Snowman (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've repeated the relevant citation at the end of the sentence. As to the primary sources, I'm unclear whether you are challenging the fact or don't accept the source, in which case I'll remove the disputed text jimfbleak (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am questioning unconditionally taking up new research data into the article. It is not about challenging the fact or not accepting the source, it is about using new research data with caution. Snowman (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowman, we've discussed this before (about how journal articles aren't primary sources). It could be years before another paper looks at that aspect of the Ruff's life. Should we not include it at all? Should be wait until a book regurgitates it, because it isn't acceptable until someone else repeats it? How do you suggest we include that information? Couch it in weasel words or say something like "Even though this is a rather interesting yet uncontroversial discovery, its new so don't trust it."? Do you have an actionable comment to make about this? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment is about the particular and not about the general, and it is actionable. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain. At present you are misinterpreting primary sources and not saying what you think should happen. Please explain why you feel that this article should not be up to date. Please provide us with some reason why we should doubt the science presented. Is it a controversial technique? It doesn't appear to be. Actually, please explain how a 1997 article can be considered cutting edge? 11 years is plenty of time for someone to read the article, undertake a undergraduate degree to get the backgrounded needed and then a PhD to study the claims, refute the claims and get the refutation printed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks SS, although it is actionable in that the text can be removed, i don't think the tagging is justified for the reasons above. Unsigned edit by jimfbleak (talk) at 05:34, 29 June 2009

With regard to this primary source that I have tagged. There is a clue in the introductory text at the top of the page which says "Forum Forum Forum: Forum is intended for new ideas or new ways of interpreting existing information. It provides a chance for suggesting hypotheses and for challenging current thinking on ecological issues." I think tagging this as a primary source is appropriate. The wiki has guidelines on primary sources which apply with or without printed refutations. Snowman (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The part of a line that I have tagged as being from a primary source is saying that as a response to a high avian malaria risk "... they might be expected to invest strongly in their immune systems; ...". Anyway, humans from hot parts of the world have a haematological mechanism (not immunological) to defend against the partly intracellular parasite malaria, by evolving fragile red blood cells as in sickle cell disease and thalassaemias. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Read "might". It says that they might, not that they will. Given what was known, it might be predicted that they would do this, as it turns out the next cite shows that they didn't. Might is sufficient couching for the article, which is a forum article (a bit like a review) in a respected journal that has been cited 57 times since publication. I am removing the tag, it is not a primary source, but a review/thinking article, and the idea, that birds in areas that have malaria might show immunological responses, is not remotely controversial. . Also, please know what the hell you are talking about, humans have immunalogical responses to malaria as well as haemtological. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not phrase that very well so that I have crossed part of it out. There is not much malaria in the UK. Yes, humans have immunological mechanisms against malaria. This is obvious or research into vaccination would not be done. I really think that the article in question is not a review; I regard it a primary source of a new idea presented in a forum. A review would be where this new idea is discussed and collated with other information. There has not been any agreement here that the primary source tag should be removed, so please put the primary source tag back. I think that discussion here should continue to discuss my claim that the primary source to a forum is unsuitable for the wiki. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Primary source. Primary source = Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Secondary source = Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. It is clear to everyone except you apparently that the source is a secondary one. It takes the primary sources, the witness statements (data collected by researchers) and analyse, synthesise, interpret, explain and evaluate what they means. A forum paper in a journal is not a primary resource under any definition. Wikipedia may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source. The journal in question is a reliable source. End of story. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The close event here is the thinking up of a new idea. I am not going to pursue the "primary sourse line" but look at a different facet instead. I am questioning the article's presentation of the information retrieved from these sources. I have amended the article to reflect what I think the sources are saying as a quick way to sort it out. I do not think the article should have a sentence to single out avian malaria as it did, because it is only one of a range of diseases and vectors that the birds are exposed to and this is the way it is presented in the source. Anyone is welcome to rewrite my amendments. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless the article is itself about an idea (a theory, or hypothesis) specifically (say, the history of evolutionary thought), ideas are not themselves the event, they are explanations or analysis of the events (the data). Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I refer you again to the clue in the header of the article's webspage, which I quoted above, which begins; "Forum Forum Forum: Forum is intended for new ideas ...". This reference also says "...and differences in the investments in immunodefence between species, provide critical ingredients for a general hypothesis to explain several peculiarities of the distribution patterns of shorebirds and, indeed, of other animals." I have added the emboldened fort to key words for clarity. The close event here is the thinking up of a new idea. Snowman (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No. general hypothesis to explain several peculiarities of the distribution patterns of shorebirds and, indeed, of other animals Primary source = the odd distribution of birds. That is the event. Secondary source = general hypothesis. That is used to explain the primary source. As in, from Wikipedia:Primary source to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. See? The forum paper explains why shorebirds are distributed as they are, why we see that pattern. It takes the primary sources (and secondary ones) and it explains them. Making it a secondary source. That the explanation is new is nether here nor there. It matters not. What matters is that the article is not interpreteing raw data, raw unfiltered primary sources, but summarising a secondary interpretation of the data. Thus meaning it is using secondary sources. Clear? (God I hate wikilawyering). Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My common sense tells me that the paper presents a new idea, which needs to be treated cautiously until its reception is clear. The article says "may be" several times and also "I will argue that", "apparent immunocompetence", and the title of the paper is question and ends in a "?". I feel that it was entirely appropriate that I highlighted this with a tag; although, in retrospect I think two tags lined up together, with the extra tag added for different reason might have been better. The tags are a bit lumpy and it is sometimes difficult to find one to say exactly what is needed. When I added the tag I also thought that the wording in the wiki article did badly distort the facts from a primary source to become misleading and I thought that the whole line should be deleted; however, with your reassuring claim that the the source has been cited 57 times, I have fixed the text. I have heard what you say and perhaps you are concerned about a principal rather than the specifics in question here. A quick look at the references shows that there are a number of obvious primary sources on the Ruff article and a case study, and they at first glance seem to "go with the flow of the article" and I have not tagged these. It seems to me that the wiki guidelines leave a lot to interpretation. Perhaps we should both accept over this issue that "not everyone's common-sense is the same" - a quote from question-time of a lecture given by psychotherapy professor I attended some years ago. I see why you think it is a secondary source, and I have explained in some detail why I think it should be regarded as a primary source; that is, partly because it presents a new idea, the article is written in rather speculative language, and its publication in a forum specifically for new ideas that challenge current thinking. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole world of difference between treating theories and hypotheses with care when they are new and treating them as primary sources. The first is indeed a decent enough idea. The first is actually a good idea, though it should be done with in context. The more outlandish a new idea the more carefully it should be treated in the article until more evidence is collected. That has nothing to do with WP:SOURCE though, because as I have tried to explain at length these are explanations, and however novel they are they are not the event. Because they were ideas, as yet untested, they were couched with the words "might be expected", thus making it clar they were as yet a hypothesis. Your point that we need to treat novel ideas carefully is not invalid, but you can't use the wrong guidelines. I am certainly concerened about the principal, if we start moving the goalposts of primary sources to include any novel idea writing articles and sourcing them becomes ten times harder for no particularly good reason that I can see. Expect me to fight tooth and nail not to have good information and sources thrown out simply to accomdate a rather novel interpretation of a guideline that apparently contradicts its very wording. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some parts of the text may contain excess British content. For example; "Ruff were formerly trapped for food in England in large numbers, with 2,400 being served at Archbishop Neville's enthronement banquet in 1465." and also the cooking and trapping details and the quote are all about a the English population of birds, which is a small proportion of the total population. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• As with all bird stuff there is always an imbalance of sources, we can only spurce and add what other people have already written. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• You appear to agree that there is am imbalance in the article, and perhaps you could refer more to the bias is this article in particular. Snowman (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are two mentions of England, one of Malawi and a more general point unconstrained by geography. But this is not reflective of regional bias in the information provided so much as it is imbalance of examples provided. The two points discussed in that section are 1)hunting and 2)potential pest status. Two of the three examples given are from the UK, which is not remotely surprising since it is the major English speaking country in which the species occurs. It would be nice to have more information from non-English speaking countries but we don't have it so how are we to be expected to include it? Or should Jim remove on of the British examples just to satisfy some arbitrary notion of balance. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Ruff population in Britain is a small proportion of the total population. I think that the UK bias need not be amplified with a quote about UK birds, when the content could be much compressed. Snowman (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a lot about Ruff in Senegal in the same source (which has two further English language references) used in the "Relationship with humans" for feeding in wintering grounds. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

South Africa is about five times larger than UK. English is one of the 11 official languages of South Afica, where English is recognised as the language of commerce and science. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant. South Africa is also a lot poorer, and thus has less biologists, writers, researchers looking at these things and has a smaller population (of which only a smaller proportion still speak English, and a tiny proportion speak it as their langauge of choice). As for the Ruff population in Britain being a small proportion of the total population, well yeah, true, because of humans (particularly Brits). Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the wiki page on South Africa, about 8.2% of South Africans speak English at home, but I guess more than this can speak English. The birds migrate a long way so hunting in one area can affect another area - that is why they are protected by a treaty for migrating birds. Anyway, UK is not primary where Ruffs live at the present time. Snowman (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments about the demography aside (8.2% = 3 million people, much less than the UK), what is your actionable requirement? To remove an example, and content, from an already light section just to achieve your desired balance? I won't support that and neither would Jim I suspect. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A kind swedish-speaking user has pointed out some Swedish and Danish information, which I have added. I have left notes on the dutch, finnish and russian wikiprojects as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re File:Philomachus pugnax.jpg. The article text mentions that the lekking is over an area of ground. The caption for the image indicates that the bird is displaying, but the image is of a bird just above water and there is no mention that displaying occurs over water in the article text. Should the caption say "Bird taking off from water" or "Bird jumping into water"? Snowman (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's just coincidence that it is over a particularly soggy bit of ground, to describe as displaying over water would be misleading and unsourceable jimfbleak (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Parts of the ground are out-of-focus - the reflections make it look like water to me. Its feet are clean, and if it is on soggy ground it is likely to have muddy feet. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that Ruff do not habitually display over water, this one must have drifted over the wet area in its leaping, but that's unactionable - I've read dozens of descriptions of the display with no suggestion that display over water is a specific practice. jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Do they display in all weathers? It might partly explain the photograph if they display in the rain as well as good weather. Snowman (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• (moral) Support Comments (as WP birds member) I am just looking into the primary sources. I am happy with the cooking section as indented historical text. Given that it is presented as historical in a quote, I do not mind in that case that it has preparation information. I also see 'refuelling' and 'staging' as used in migration as, although slightly esoteric, readily understandable. I can't think of a better way of expressing them. Preliminarily, the only thing I can think f with the primary sources is clarifying that it was researcher X who proposed Y and carried out the study Z, which should not be too hard to do. It is monday AM here and I should be getting ready to hea out the door but will read sources later today. I am very close to supporting once I look. I have reworded the one I can read so it accurately reflects that it is a primary source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I have a family funeral today, so it could be 24 hours before I edit again jimfbleak (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Take care Jim. Casliber (talk · contribs)

What is "(moral) Support Comments"? We are all giving the article and User Jimfbleak moral support, but that does not automatically make the article an FA. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I use the adjective "moral" to disclose the fact that I am a WP:Bird member and (often) small-time contributor, hence in some way non-impartial. It has been discussed (without reaching a consensus) whether involved editors should actually support articles in situations such as these. Hence the explanation, which allows me to register that I feel the article has reached what I consider FA status yet signifies my position to the Featured Article director, who can then take this into consideration when the nomination is closed. I cannot speak for how they regard my comments or not. I was happy that there were no deal-breakers left but will look over the AEWA listing below as I agree with you that it is worth looking at. As far as non-english sources, I regard them more as surplus to requirements but will see what we can come up with when asking around. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, many thanks for the edits and support in my absence, much appreciated. Snowman, on the moral support issue, I do this too. I think it's quite acceptable for project members to indicate when they think and article has reached the required standard, especially since they have the greatest interest in and knowledge of the topic. It's equally necessary, I believe, to declare a potential COI as a project member. There may be a better phrase but the meaning is clear. jimfbleak (talk)

I do not think it is particularly clear what it means, but I know what it means now. Snowman (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Ruff listing on AEWA in class 2c is an omission; see here. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I had an idea on how to pursue some non-english material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The omission is also apparent in the introduction where it rather clumsily says that there are "no global concerns" and then goes on to explain that there is a decline in European populations. The AEWA listing in 2c indicates "Populations numbering more than around 100,000 individuals and considered to be in need of special attention as a result of ... significant long-term decline" applying to "Northern Europe & Western Siberia/West Africa" and "Northern Siberia/SW Asia, E & S Africa". Snowman (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried this but I am tired so some wording might be clumsy. You're welcome to adjust it. I will look in on it when I wake up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I might mess it up by editing it. Someone reading it for the first time might be able to see something that I can not. Snowman (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will look at it again tomorrow to double check myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrective edits on this mea culpa. On sources, I do look for foreign language sources (see Northern Bald Ibis for example. In this case, even the foreign researchers mostly write in English. Its inevitable that most data comes from wealthy areas with lots of scientists, and I deliberately trim UK stuff (Red-billed Chough would have been 90% UK if written proportionately to the source material). Material from outside Europe is hard to come by unless Shyamal is able to dig something up. jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very biased bird! Not seen in large numbers in South Asia. Material from West Africa may be good to look out for. In addition there may be some useful Norsk and Dutch material. Some other things to look at could be [2] (Their breeding as far south as Kazakhstan may be of interest [Khrokov, V. 1988. Breeding record of Ruff Philomachus pugnax in Northern Kazakhstan. Ornitologiya 23:224-225 [in Russian] cited in [3]) [4], [5] Shyamal (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian birds are already adequately covered in the Article, is there anything else interesting about these birds. My 1995 bird migration atlas indicates that the Australian birds migrate to the far east of Russia and says that their migration route is unknown. Snowman (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The concept of "wintering grounds" does not seem to apply to the majority of a bird species that spend the summer in the north and migrate to the summer or the tropics in the south. The actionable point being that perhaps this Eurocentric view of seasons that prevails thought out the "Distribution and habitat" section should be amended. I had to check in a bird migration atlas to find out what the article meant. The article refers to "... wintering in the tropics, ...", which probably means migrating to the tropics to a part of the world where there is not much summer and winter variation. To an Australian person the Ruffs would arrive in Australia to spend the summer there and perhaps an Australian would not think of Australia as a "wintering ground". If I am being presumptive, I am sure the Australian editors and readers will have an opinion, and so will South African readers, and so on. Snowman (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• In New Zealand the non-breeding range of the cuckoo species which breed here and migrate north across the Pacific and Australia is refered to as wintering grounds. The term is a common way to refer to the non-breeding distribution. Alternitavely you could say it winters in New Guinea. It is hardly a difficult idea to grasp even if you have not heard of it before, I mean, it is ground where they spend the winter. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is good to hear your view from NZ. Perhaps, this wintering concept depends on a little knowledge and, like any other jargon, could be explained or avoided. The actual mention of the months when the birds migrate appears late in the "Distribution and habitat" section in the fourth paragraph and that is only for leaving the wintering grounds. I think that the section would be clearer if the months of migration were mentioned earlier in the section and preferably in the first paragraph. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

amended to and spends the northern winter in the tropics which should avoid ambiguity, although for a species which breeds exclusively in the northern hemisphere, I think that's implied anyway. jimfbleak (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also followed up Shyamal's link and added another re Kazakhstan jimfbleak (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a trend for images to have alt text. Is this being taken up here? Snowman (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• What's that when it's at home then? The article doesn't explain what that means in layman's terms. There is certain;y no indication it is required, but what benefit would there be? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It gives text when the image can not be shown. Some GA reviews have been asking for them, but other FACs do not have them, so I guess that it is not a requirement. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is discussion, it was not a requirement at the start of this FAC and I don't think it's needed anyway. Snowman, it's not necessary to reference every sentence, items are normally referenced by the next in-line reference, even if it's further on. I don't want this to end up full of unecesssary cn tags/repeated references. Nevertheless, I've repeated the Hayman ref to remove a cn tag. Whilst I can understand you querying whether an on-line source says what I claim it does, it's difficult to see on what basis you are challenging a reference to a book unless you have actually checked in Hayman Unsigned comment by jimfbleak at 05:04, 1 July 2009 (talk). See this edit

Jim, I think it is safe to remove that double cite. Snowman, if something is cited on the next sentence it is unnecassary to cite twice. If you aren't sure if the citation at the end of the next sentence applies to a fact, it is polite to ask before you slap a tag in. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The ref is needed because it is not clear where that claim came from. It is standard and polite to add a cn tag where a ref is needed. I wanted the ref because the line seems odd to me and I have added another problem about it below. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"if something is cited on the next sentence it is unnecessary to cite twice"; where does this come form? For the text in question there are two references at the end of the next sentence and another two references at the end of the sentence after that one. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To User Sabines Sunbird, I think that you have underestimated the care with which I add tags. It may help you to know that I thought about adding the cn tag in question for some time, and I read the paragraph over and over again. The paragraph was difficult to read and ambiguous and I could not work out where one sentence had come from, so I could not correct it myself from the source. I request that you withdraw your comment that seems to refer to me slapping a cn tag in. Snowman (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to hear you do not "slap" down tags, and that you think about the review process before commenting and editing. However you'll forgive me but I don't make a habit of rewording, or withdrawing, what I have said except to clarify my meaning. This is not a court of law, and what I have said (or typed) I have said. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the cn tag in question was appropriately placed and I know that I did not slap it down flippantly. I wrote a explanatory edit summery and the ambiguity where the cn tag was has been amended. I received appreciation for a previous cn tag that I added to this article; see my talk page. I have no doubt that you are aware that "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." Snowman (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I haver indeed heard that! I look forward to you assuming good faith in the future by not assuming that good natured jokes and casual language use are slurs against you and demanding apologies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make it very clear that I have not said that your comment was a slur against me. What I did politely say was; "I request that you withdraw your comment that seems to refer to me slapping a cn tag in." I think that a joke (by another user earlier in this review) has been amicably discussed in a few sort lines, and I do not see any need to discuss that joke any further. Snowman (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that you do not consider it a slur, I must confess am I confused as to why you are so adamant that I should withdraw it. Moreover I feel I should point out that one does not need to outright state something in order to imply the meaning. You have clearly taken great offence at my wording, and Jim's comment prior to the clarification, insofar as you have demanded (and not for the first time, I feel the need to notice) that we withdraw our words from the public sphere. If you do not think I have slurred you, why the desire for me to "withdraw" my comment? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Referred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#About_a_discussion. Snowman (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me, but I continue to be confused. I have apparently not slurred you, yet my refusal to strike the wording I have used in comments I have made, and my questioning as to how thise wording has offended you while not slurring you (a question as yet not answered by you) have somehow moved you to feel that this needs escalating to AN. What, exactly, has my demotion to the status of admin got to do with this discussion? Because I use my admin bit rarely if at all, and never in this discussion (except as an example, off page, of my long running distaste of CN tags). I see that you hope to settle this (whatever this might be) amicably (you words) but I cannot help but wonder if that was the case why you felt you were unable to do so by simply continuing to talk to me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 13:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows:

• File:Philomachus pugnax (Marek Szczepanek).jpg: for photos uploaded by someone other than its creator, permission should be authenticated through an OTRS ticket; this photo is lacking such a ticket. I thought I had told Pkuczynski to do that... (ref: commons:User talk:Pkuczynski#Marek Szczepanek's photos Jappalang (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• disputed image removed jimfbleak (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• "In Great Britain and parts of coastal western Europe, birds may be present all year.[20] Non-breeding birds may remain in the wintering quarters all year.[3]" This part could be misleading or could cause confusion in the way one sentence is followed by the next. It might suggest that in Britain all the birds that winter there are non-breeding birds. I presume that it means that some birds stay in the tropics or the south all year in non-breeding form. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• rephrased In Great Britain and parts of coastal western Europe, where the breeding and wintering ranges overlap, birds may be present all year.[20] Non-breeding birds may also remain year round in the tropical wintering quarters. I think this is now unambiguous, so the redundant Hayman ref also removed jimfbleak (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The wording is now clear, but I do not know why you removed an in-line reference which is still needed. This claim needs an in-line reference; "Non-breeding birds may also remain year round in the tropical wintering quarters." At the present time there is nothing to indicate where this information came from. Snowman (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral; I have a conflict of interest in voting because I have edited the page and other bird articles. I think there are some unfinished discussions here which probably need to be completed, but I see nothing significant enough to prevent an FA grading. However, new reviewers to the page may inspire further edits, perhaps for issues already raised, before FA is achieved. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Snowman, thank you for the positive comment. 05:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Unsigned comment by jimfbleak (talk); see this edit.

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Note: I don't know squat about birds. I do think that this article could do with a good copy-edit.

• "It is usually considered to be the only member of its genus, with the Broad-billed and Sharp-tailed Sandpipers as its closest relatives." "with" is usually a poor logical connector. Suggest "It is usually considered to be the only member of its genus, and the Broad-billed and Sharp-tailed Sandpipers are its closest relatives."

• done as suggested

• "This is a long-necked, pot-bellied bird." Call it personal preference, but using "this" as a reference to the subject, especially when it is not mentioned in name immediately before, is jarring.

• the Ruff is...

• "The female and non-breeding male have grey-brown upperparts and mainly white underparts, but this species shows marked sexual dimorphism; the male is much larger than the female (the reeve), and has a breeding plumage which includes brightly coloured head tufts and the large collar of ornamental feathers which led to its English name." The contradiction you're trying to underline isn't emphasized enough (that despite males and females sharing similar colorings, they are also markedly different), making the logic confusing to the reader. Also, attention needs to be paid on whether to use "which" or "that" google search, as that is a recurring grammatical problem.

• I've rewritten this paragraph, please check

• "Insects are the main food, especially in the breeding season, but it will take plant material, including rice and maize, on migration and in winter." Just awkward, especially the usage of "it". How about "It primarily feeds on insects, especially in the breeding season, but will take [better word than "take"?] plant material, including rice and maize, on migration and in winter.

• Amended as suggested, consume instead of take

• "least concern IUCN Red List, the global conservation concerns I don't see any closing quotation marks

• Classified as "least concern" on the IUCN Red List criteria

Those are examples from the lead. I'm confident that WP Birds will rise up and polish this article. Perhaps a job for Casliber? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for comments, changes made as above, plus a which/that check jimfbleak (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds" Why the italics? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Striking my oppose, as the prose improves considerably as one goes down. As the lead is in many cases the hardest part of the article to construct, I see why I may have been misled with regard to the writing. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for strike and c-e. I hate doing the lead, it's so difficult to meet all the conflicting requirements well. jimfbleak (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment from nominator. although I started this FAC before alt text became a de facto requirement, it has now been added since it is clearly helpful and within my limited technical skills jimfbleak (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm reading through this article, and will add comments as I go through it. My first question is about the cross-dressers. Is there any proposed advantage for the cross-dressing males? Has there been a hypothesis on why the female-mimics don't fully molt into the full male plumage? The text seems to indicate this may be an older trait, now abandoned by nearly all males of the species, so possibly it was no advantage at all. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The existence of faeders was only discovered in 2006, so there are a lot of questions still to be answered. Even the exact genetic mechanism that produces the faeders is unknown, although the fact that 1% of males are of this form is consistent with the ratio that would be expected if it was due to the bird having two "satellite" genes. I found a new (2009) reference which partially answers your question, and I've added Females often seem to prefer copulations with faeders above copulations with normal males, and normal males also copulate with faeders (and vice versa) more often with females. The homosexual copulations may attract females to the lek, like the presence of satellite males. The advantage to the faeders is that they get to mate, and to the other males the advantage is that more females may be attracted, so like the satellites, it is self-sustaining.

Thanks Jim. My next question concerns the range map. The text says "The Ruff is a regular visitor to Alaska (where it has occasionally bred), Canada and the contiguous states of the US, and it has also wandered to Iceland, Central America, northern South America, Madagascar and New Zealand." However, the map shows no activity in any of these places. Is the amount of Ruffs in these regions too small to show on the map, or do regular and occasional visits not count on range maps? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Range maps typically show the normal distribution. Some bird guides show vagrant records (wanderers) as dots (like Sibley) but these are habitually of more interest to twitchers. More rarely guides may signify rarity in an area with a more washed out colour as well, but to my mind it is acceptable and even conventional to leave vagrants off the map. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I guess it was just the "regular visitor" part that threw me. If they're regular visitors, shouldn't the range map show it? Also: the lead image in this article, File:Kampfläufer 2007-06-08 118.jpg, appears on List of birds of Western Australia. But the range map, again, shows no birds in Western Australia. Only the southestern portion of Australia shows Ruffs. Similarly, articles such as List of birds of Singapore, List of birds of Queensland, List of South Carolina birds, List of Hawaii birds, List of birds of Canada and the United States, List of Japanese birds: non-passerines, List of birds of Cyprus, List of Oklahoma birds, and many others list Ruff as present there. If they're featured enough to be present in these lists, why not on the range map as well? (Feel free to ignore this observation if it's painfully clear I don't know what I'm talking about as a non-bird person). Firsfron of Ronchester 01:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, if you aren't clear then I guess the article isn't either. A regular visitor is birding terminology - an area is not a typical area for a bird to be but a few end up there each year - essentially it is a mistake in migration that is consistently made by a few individuals (as opposed to a small songbird being blown over the Atlantic - which is a very rare occasion for a particular species). As such the numbers involved are statistically insignificant as a proportion of the whole population, but are significant compared to other vagrants, and therefore often recorded on lists (as a careful or impassioned birder would be expected to find one if he tried and knew where to look). So I think we need to make this clearer. Let's see what Jim has to say. It should be pointed out that 1) many of Wikipedia's bird lists are auto-generated and need improvement in regards to making it clear when things are rare/irregular visitors. Also, B the maps show where they breed and where they winter. This particular map excludes areas where they are passage migrants - their flyways and staging grounds. These are areas they may use only for a matter of days or weeks, and are often excluded from these maps because we actually don't know teh exact route with any precision. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Sabine has dealt with the main points, but I've rephrased as The Ruff is an uncommon visitor to Alaska since regular gives a misleading impression. Cyprus and Singapore would be regularly visited by Ruffs on their way further south, and the US listings are undoubtedly as a rarity. My source maps did not show areas where Ruff is seen on migration, it's understood to be everywhere between the breeding and wintering areas. Records of vagrants aren't normally mapped, and none of my map sources show them. The bird lists, as Sabine says, need to be taken with a pinch of salt, and I haven't listed vagrancy unless it's from an authoritative source like Hayman. jimfbleak (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns as a reader have been addressed. This is yet another truly wonderful article from Jim and the WP:BIRD people. I checked other encyclopedias, and none of them had an article remotely as well done as this. Britannica's article and World Book's entry are much less detailed. I don't know a lot about birds (in fact, when I started reading this article, I thought a Ruff was something like a Ruffed Grouse... I imagined a chicken-like animal), so now I'm all eddycated about this crossdressing sandpiper relative. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the kind words - it's just as well that we bird folk don't blush easily! jimfbleak (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments This is looking solid on a surface reading. Some tidbits I pulled out of sample sections:
  • "the large collar of ornamental feathers that led to this bird's English name" Would you object to "that inspired this bird's English name"?

• That's good, done

• • Already did some delinking, but do we really need to link things like "nest", "bill", and "gravy boat"?

• The first two were linked by other editors, now delinked, I was specifically asked to link "gravy boat" at GA, so I would like to keep that - it's perhaps the least obvious of the three

• • "This decline has seen it registered" Unwieldy.

• now "listed in", Is that any better?

• • "This species was first described by Linnaeus" Why piping his full name instead of just writing it?

• Why indeed? Done

• • I can't tell from reading WP:ALT, but I'm fairly certain we don't want to wikilink words in alt text when that very same word is linked in the caption. Anyone looking at/listening to the alt text will also see/hear the caption so they don't want both links.

• Showing my ignorance there, I thought it was either/or, not both. All repeated links removed

• • "In Kenya, males moulted 3–4 weeks ahead of the females" Unsure why we've switched to past tense in this section. Do they do it every year or just in one documented case?

• Tense drift is one of the first things i check when reviewing other editor's work, so I'm suitably mortified by this. Fixed now.

--Laser brain (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the delinking, review and helpful comments Jimfbleak. Talk to me 05:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this has been promoted as of yesterday. Thanks for the changes and congrats! --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Even though this has already been promoted, I want to go on record as saying this is an excellent article. I have one question, though. Is "Ruff" considered plural or singular? I see "More than half of female Ruffs mate with" but "Ruff were formerly trapped for food " (and I may have accidentally worsened the inconsistencies). Otherwise, great job. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The species is the Ruff (singular) but individual birds are sometimes pluralised as "Ruffs" and sometimes kept in the singular form. "Three Ruffs" and "three ruff" are both acceptable, but obviously some consistency would be helpful. I'll check through, but it may not be until tomorrow. Thanks for the support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.