Talk:Gyrfalcon

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gyrfalcon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to withdraw this article for further work, since it's quite a long way off the standard. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds for bird GA and FA articles that might help you. If you think you can address the problems in a reasonable time, I'll continue with the review and provide more detailed comments. First, some major issues

• Much of the text is completely unreferenced. For GA and FA, effectively anything other than the lead needs a reference
• The references are a mess. You need to distinguish between the texts you have used as sources "Cited texts" and those you haven't used "Bibliography"
• Many of the refs and ELs are bare https, need formatting, see the bird FAs, GAs. Each source should have a separate ref ( not Helbig et al. (1994), Wink et al. (1998), Wink et al. (2004), Nittinger et al. (2005))
• There are errors in the other refs, see BirdLife International (BLI) ref as one example
• The lead does not summarise the article, entire sections receive no mention
• Capitalisation of species is inconsistent. Note that it is project policy that all bird species are fully capped, so Gyrfalcon, Golden Eagle etc
• Article name should not appear in image captions
• Needs a copyedit eg The Gyrfalcon has long associated with humans, who have found them

I'll give you some time to sort out the main issues, if you wish to continue with the nom, but I don't want to put a lot of time into minor issues until I'm confident that this is going to run Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a partial clean up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Re: bibliography/cited texts – I don't think that's right, unless things are done differently on WP Birds articles (and unless you guys use a different definition of 'bibliography' - list of texts referred to in an article :P). AGK 14:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• The point I was making was that there should be some differentiation between texts used as references, and those (Birdlife, Royal Alberta) that aren't. The exact headings aren't important bibliography + Further reading would be fine. Unless those two refs are going to be used. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, 'further reading' is what I too would use. I'll fork to a separate section those texts that are presently in 'bibliography' but that are not cited. AGK 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"falcon species"?

in the first sentence, is it right to call "falcon" a species or should it be referred to as a genus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.186.252 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

And how is it pronounced?

• The 'g' is pronounced as 'j' in "jet". Anthony Appleyard 09:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

gyros

Gyros is actually Greek, maybe there's a Latin word derived, but it should be Greek. --Selach (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And it has nothing to do with the gyrfalcon, which in Latin is "gryfalcus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.35.12 (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Gyrfalcon" vs. "Gyr falcon"

It seems to me that Gyrfalcon is the far more common of the two spellings. I'm not a falconer, though I do know some, but I rarely see it written as two words. Should the title of the article be changed to reflect this, or am I wrong? 198.105.45.201 06:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, The Once and Future King uses gyrfalcon exclusively. In either case, the article needs to be consistent; as it stands, both spelings are present on the page. I think we should standardize to gyrfalcon unless there are pressing objections. Isopropyl 16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't think the above source is particularly authorative, Google is about 50/50, but my field guides use Gyr Falcon, which better shows the affinity with other falcons, all of which are spelt as two words (eg Amur Falcon). jimfbleak 04:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The "standard" HBW/BirdLife name is the one-word variant. Dysmorodrepanis 04:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Big Beautiful Bird: Spotted What is it?

I watched an awesome spectacle yesterday from the deck of a cottage on Lake Megunticook just inland off Penobscot Bay [estuary of Penobsot River], Maine [USA] It was a sunny, unseasonably warm [over 80 degrees F] day for late September in Maine, but the water was much cooler than the air.

I was sitting lookin up from the cottage front deck to a tall waterfront white pine [about 100 feet high] when a big beautiful bird with alternating black and white feathers landed high up near the top of the tree. It had a windspan [I estimate] of about 4 feet.

When this large bird landed it quickly disappeared among the pine tree branches and pine needles but I sensed it was still in there somewhere, although I couldn't see it.

A few minutes later it suddenly came out of the tree and dove headfirst into the water, disappearing beneath the surface for several minutes.

Then it emerged, took wing and flew away. I didn't see any fish in its mouth, or talons, when it came out of the water.

In trying to identify it I naturally thought it was an osprey, but checking the photos of osprey, it did not have the bright white breast and white wings like the osprey pictures. From the photos the gyrfalcon looks like a better match than the osprey images I have found.

It had a greyish breast with black spots and alternating black and white feathers of the wings, tail, and head.

The behaviour however looked more like what an osprey would do than a gyrfalcon. I don't see any reference to gyrfalcon diving into lakes like osprey do. Was it diving for fish? Or maybe it was hot and just wanted to take a quick swim to cool off. Could it have been a gyrfalcon? What do you think? Do gyrfalcon go after fish? Do they take dives into lakes? Rrrrprrrr 02:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Try asking at the Reference desk. You'll have better luck there than on an article's talk page. Tim Q. Wells 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wingspan too great

The 130–160 cm span reported by some authors is incorrect, virtually outside true range in fact; see pages 31–32 here. Likewise, Mullarney, Svensson & Zetterström give a span of 109–134 cm. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

missing information

A lot of information is missing. There isn't a section on range, nor is there enough on breeding. Nowhere in the article does it state when the breeding season is, nor anything on the range of the bird aside from a few sentences in the lead section.
I don't know enough about the topic to add to it, but I'm hoping someone else can.
2603:8000:9903:663C:7DFC:7C75:B28F:27B6 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)