Talk:Northern storm petrel

message: Is "Stormy Petrel - Hydrobates pelagicus" a different species from the one in the header of this article, and may we therefore expect another article disambiguated or otherwise? --Dieter Simon 17:38 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Yes, Dieter. You have been confused by a little bit of classic Anglo-centrisim. Hydrobates pelagicus is properly known as the European Storm Petrel but. with their usual unconcern for the rest of the word, those evil Europeans try to monopolise the term. I'll give you London to a brick ... er ... I mean Melbourne to a lump of mortar ... that it's just about universally known as the simply the "Storm Petrel" in the part of the world where the bathwater goes round the wrong way. Tannin
Sorry, Tannin, if I sounded a bit facetious. No, it wasn't the name of Storm petrel I was querying, why 'Storm Petrel' should be a red link in an article about Storm petrel, that's all. I have been here too long to think in German or any other European language. And I must put to the test   water gurgling away the wrong way out of a bathtub, next time I am in Oz. And I do like Melbourne, it's a great city. Dieter Simon 23:00 24 May 2003 (UTC)
:I don't think I can do the GA review, since I've contributed to this on-and-off, but just a couple of points.
#There are several paras where the ref is at the end of the first sentence, and there is nothing at the end. If the ref refers to the whole para, wouldn't it be better at the end, to make that clear?
#(purely personal preference/prejudice) I always think reflist|2 looks neater
Jimfbleak (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is

message: I am happy to report that this article has been promoted to Good Article status. This is how the article, as of February 4, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
# Well written? Pass.  It's clear, understandable, and pleasant to read.
# Factually accurate?  Pass.  The refs support the article, and nothing seemed incorrect to me (although I'm not an expert).
# Broad in coverage? Pass.  It covers the information that I wanted to know, without leaving out anything important.
# Neutral point of view? Pass.  As this isn't a very controversial topic, this was probably easy to do.
# Article stability? Pass.  No edit wars, no major changes recently. 
# Images? Pass.  Gorgeous images.  I particularly like the variety of images, from the "bird in hand" to "walking on water".
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to the Good Article Reassessment process. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.  This is a beautiful article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful good article nomination

message: I think I remember that "Stormy Petrel" was also the name of Steerforth's boat in David Copperfield by Charles Dickens.  Steerforth was a kind-hearted rascal who took a liking to Copperfield and protected him at the boarding school.   A reference would be any edition of the book, but I do not have time to read it again to find the page number.
Leonidas2008 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural representation of the storm petrel