Talk:Procellariiformes

message: *Given this article is on an order, more discussion on the order's closest relatives, and place within aves.
*Maybe a note on why Ciconiiformes has been queried or discounted.
*Taxonomic history - who described them, also alternate name tubinares.
*Diet - they all eat solely fish and fishoids (?) apart from naughty giant petrels?
:Krill. There is a great deal more that can be said about their diet than just what they eat, read my previous efforts at [[albatross[[, Procallariidae and storm-petrel. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, I think is article is shaping up pretty well anyway. another thing may be some anatomical similarities with nearest relatives (penguins/divers) which support molecular studies. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been in a good condition for a while. I was seriously pushing it towards FA before Bird's FA sucked the life out of me. Diet and taxonomy were the two big things left. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do list pre FA/GA?

message: "Scientists are uncertain as to its exact processes, but do know that, in general terms, it removes salt from the system and forms a 5% saline solution that drips out of the nostrils, or is forcibly ejected in some petrels."
That phrase isn't too true anymore, specifically the part about being uncertain about the processes involved. Not sure when it was added, but M.R. Hughes has a pretty extensive review paper on salt regulation in salt gland, kidney, and gut interactions from 2003. doi:10.1016/j.cbpb.2003.09.005 Esoxidt•contribs 04:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Salt glands

message: I nominate this article for Good Article status based upon the following criteria:
# The article sources seem to be reliable. I was able to check one source, the Van Den et al. source. The source validated the article’s claims. The article did not close paraphrase or appear to plagiarize the sources. I was not able to access many of the other sources, because they are books that I did not have access to the online version and the books were not readily available in my library.
# The article presents all information in a neutral way. The article is also well-written. It is concise and keeps focus on the topic. The article also seems to be very complete. It covers a lot of information surrounding the topic.
# Besides 1 citation needed spot, there are no other cleanup banners on the page. All suggestions for edits seem to have been addressed.
# The article does not seem to be the subject of any ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. The article seems to have addressed all editing suggestions. There are even other comments on the Talk page that suggest that this page should be at least be a candidate for Good Article status. While more can be written about taxonomy and diet, the article is fairly complete without these topics. From my review, it seems to classify for Good Article even without these sections, although completing these sections will definitely enhance the completeness of the article.
# The article does not specifically concern a rapid current event that has a definite endpoint.
# Again, I did not notice any close paraphrasing or copyright violations. I do acknowledge that I do not have any reference-checking software, so my review of this aspect was limited.
# The article has many images. The images are really attractive, as far as capturing the viewer’s attention, and relevant to the topic. All of the images used are on WikiMedia Commons and released for public use.
WhitleyTucker (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Nomination

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Procellariiformes. 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/20100614111930/http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Parker/1982/Classification/51469.htm to http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Parker/1982/Classification/51469.htm
*Added  tag to http://ardeajournal.natuurinfo.nl/ardeapdf/a79-001-014.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519022957/http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBL/homepage/longvrec.htm to http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBL/homepage/longvrec.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120192121/http://www.notornis.org.nz/free_issues/Notornis_41-1994/Notornis_41_sup_27.pdf to http://www.notornis.org.nz/free_issues/Notornis_41-1994/Notornis_41_sup_27.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060724172107/http://www.nzes.org.nz/nzje/free_issues/ProNZES24_84.pdf to http://www.nzes.org.nz/nzje/free_issues/ProNZES24_84.pdf
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) 02:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified