Talk:Snowy albatross

message: :"The Wandering Albatross is the whitest of the Wandering Albatross species complex..."
This essentially says that "X is a subset of X," which simply doesn't make any sense. I just tried to fix it by removing the second "Wandering," but my edit was reverted. So rather than get into a reversion war, let's figure out how to clean this up.  Clearly, the two "X"s need to be differentiated from each other somehow. Any suggestions? Skybum (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually says that X1 is a subset of X", but to a reader that is unfamiliar with the concept of species complexes I understand that it might be confusing. The Wandering Albatross species complex includes the Tristan, Antipodean and Amsterdam Albatrosses as well. I'll think about how best to clarify that. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am indeed a bit of a neophyte here, but it's rather confusing if both X1 and X are called exactly the same thing. I'll also ponder ways to address that. Another part of the problem is that the species complex page seems to directly contradict what this page says; if members of a species complex are morphologically indistinguishable from one another, then how can one species within the complex be larger and whiter than another? So perhaps that page needs a bit of revision as well. Skybum (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are called a species complex because it was only recently established that they are separate species, and the species boundaries are hard to define, particularly using morphological characters. The amount of white can vary within a species and with age as well, so it isn't a fantastic diagnostic tool.  But yeah, clarity would be helpful. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 00:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for the reversion of a good faith edit, I shouldn't have done it that way. It's a tricky one; I know what it means, but it's difficult to express elegantly. Anyway, Sabine is the albatross king, so I'll take the easy way out and leave it to him Jimfbleak (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problematic statement 

message: Autochthony writes.
Plainly, estimating size on the wing is difficult.
However, many years ago, possibly 1982, I was sailing round the Cape (Suez was closed to VLCCs ), and we had a number of Wandering Albatross flying round the ship for some days, on and off.  Most appeared - by eye - to be about the same size.  One, however, largely white, was at least 25% bigger in wingspan [maybe 33%].  If the average is 3m, and the other birds averaged out at that 3m, the big one was 3.75 to 4 metres in span; to Imperial measurement folk like me, that is - near enough - 12'4" to 13'2".
12' 6" or so would do as an Imperial estimate.  Autochthony wrote 2030z/22 October 2009. 86.154.31.21 (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: As part of that course, I wrote ~300 word evaluations of various bird articles on wiki. My evaluation of this one is reproduced below, which is just my thoughts about possible improvements and things the article does well. 
::             This Wikipedia article on the Wandering Albatross is decently large, but not nearly as complete as the article on the Great Tit. I am not sure if this is due to a lack of contributors or a lack of knowledge in general about the species. I suspect it's the former, since the article lead claims that it is "one of the best known and best studied species of bird in the world".  The talk page is rather empty, too, and the history page includes a lot of reversions of vandalism. There is very little content, with only one or two sentences given over to each subheader. The writing style is inconsistent, and the "Relationship with humans" section in particular reads more like a literary analysis of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner than a true encyclopedia article. Some claims such as those concerning breeding and travelling tendencies lack references. The organization of the page could definitely use some work - there doesn't seem to be any sort of thoughtful organization behind what constitutes a header or subheader. For example, "Behavior” is listed as a subheader under Ecology, but "Breeding", "Feeding", and "Reproduction" are also subheaders, even though they should really all be listed under Behavior. The pictures are nice, but their captions could be more descriptive. A caption under a picture of an egg only reads, "Diomedea exulans - MHNT", which isn't very helpful when trying to determine what the picture is supposed to represent. There is a table of Breeding Population and Trends, which is quite nice and informative. Overall, though, the article definitely needs some cleaning up, and WikiProject Birds actually has the page listed as a top priority.
 
WolfyFTW (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  My evaluation of this article 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Diomedea exulans in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 1, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Diomedea exulans in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Diomedea exulans - SE Tasmania.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 27, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Diomedea exulans - SE Tasmania.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Wandering albatross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221113624/http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop388.html to http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop388.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107111108/http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1004/1004_feature.html to http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1004/1004_feature.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified