Jump to content

Talk:Ruff (bird)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleRuff (bird) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 18, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 14, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

My evaluation of this article for Bio372

[edit]

The entry on Ruffs seems complete. It fits the entire format under the WikiProject Birds description and has plenty of pictures. The behavior section of the article is thorough and mentions the 3 alternative mating strategies as well as how it is genetically related. A picture of the third type of male that mimics females is missing and would add to the article. The article could mention frequency dependent advantages for each mating strategy. The writing is neutral, clear, and well referenced. There are no words that introduce bias and the words are precise with no clichés. However, according to peer reviewer, two of the links on the page are no longer working. Looking at the Talk page, the Ruff has had a good amount of thought put into it. One individual reviewed the article for quality and put considerable time into pointing out how to improve the article as well as rated the article as good quality. All of the suggestions that the reviewer made have been corrected. The article used to be a featured article so it is considered one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The history shows a lot of small changes, except for some very large deletions and reversions that seem to be due to vandalism. Zhangt2413 (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some gratuitous feedback....

[edit]
  • ...is a medium-sized wader which breeds on marshes and wet meadows in northern Europe and Russia. - sounds odd as one is a continent (or part thereof) and one a country, but I concede I can't think of a better way to write it (N Europe and NW Asia???). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to northern Eurasia, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ruff (bird)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]
None I can find - an Arctic breeding wetland bird isn't a prime candidate, and the connection with the Tudor collar is a reverse link jimfbleak (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Philcha (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

Referencing of books

[edit]
That looks like a good method, which I'll bear in mind, but I'll leave refs as they are if there is no MoS issue

Taxonomy and nomenclature

[edit]
Figure 7, which is for the family Scolopacidae, shows the three species grouped together
Thanks. Not being an ornithologist the scientific names meant nothing to me. I've assed "Especially fig. 7" to the ref. --Philcha (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
added sandpiper link, although not as helpful as it seems since it's a redirect to Scolopacidae jimfbleak (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you linked (reviewer's blindness?), but I take your point. --Philcha (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Latin is too rusty to do a full translation, removed quote jimfbleak (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The better part ... :-) --Philcha (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please translate the relevant passage from Merrem re transfer to Philomachus.
I don't think I've quoted a passage jimfbleak (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Philcha (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of what we agreed about Linnaeus, .... --Philcha (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Please explain "leks", as this section precedes "Mating". If I were writing this (silence in the cheap seats!), I'd fancy a colloquial explanation like "mating fairs". Whatever the explanation is, a ref would be needed, possibly to an online dictionary. --Philcha (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lek was linked in lead, but I like the change of phrase, fixed as "mating arena" jimfbleak (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apt. --Philcha (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "a later name reeve, which is still used for the female, is of unknown origin, but it may be derived from the shire-reeve, a feudal officer, likening the male's flamboyant plumage to the official's robes":
Yes jimfbleak (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ree or reeve was the original name for both sexes. When the male was likened to the collar, this would hardly apply to the female, which retained the old name. Although that too referred to the male's flamboyant plumage, I imagine the connection was long forgotten jimfbleak (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description

[edit]
Done jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
deeper, slower wing stroke now, kept deeper because longer could have a temporal meaning jimfbleak (talk)
Fair point. --Philcha (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fixed jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY "the male is much larger than the female and has a distinctive set of breeding plumages" appears to be contradicted by the "Mating" sections description of male forms:
This species shows sexual dimorphism; although a small percentage of males resemble females, the typical male... and has a elaborate breeding plumage. I think this rejig addresses the points below too jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly, but omits the satellite stealth shaggers. How about e.g. "although there are three male forms, by far the commonest ..."? I think that would give readers enough warning without duplicating the "Mating" section. --Philcha (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The description of typical males includes the satellite shaggers. They are essentially the same as the territorial males in appearance except for the white ruff (included as one of the colour options they may be black, chestnut or white) The main differences between the territorial and satellite males, other than the ruff colour, are behavioural, not appearance. jimfbleak (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as the revised "Mating" section now handles it up-front. --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Green tickY(see above) In fact it appears to contradict the para's final sentence, " The extreme variability of the breeding plumage ..." --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about e.g. "Three adult male forms are known, but most are much larger ..."? With refs, of course.
    • Then the following sentences should make it clear that they describe the largest and commonest male form. --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might need to restructure to present features common to all male forms first - if any, as this may not apply if the female impersonator is indistinguishable from females at binocular range. --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Img caption "Male in breeding plumage" needs to be changed accordingly. --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done
  •  Done Please check whether para "Outside the breeding season, the male's head and neck decorations ..." needs to be changed a result of the multiple male forms. --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
added normal male jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done
normal male, impersonator and female all have similar appearance in winter, so OK as is jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I think "The juvenile Ruff resembles the non-breeding adult, but has neat, scaly upperparts with dark feather centres, and a strong buff tinge to the underparts" has a few problems:
As above, they are similarly plumaged in winter
The plumage of the juvenile Ruff resembles the non-breeding adult, but has neat, scaly-looking upperparts with dark feather centres, and a strong buff tinge to the underparts. jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised there are earlier occurrences of "scaly" - my fault, I'm sorry. I suggest changing the first instance to "with a scale-like pattern" and the rest to "scale-like". --Philcha (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like scale-like, it suggests texture rather than appearance. All occurrences now scle-like pattern or similar, or removed jimfbleak (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's really nice, thanks! --Philcha (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY The description of appearance is getting more complicated by the sentence - it's a chicken and egg problem, as you don't want to incorporate too much of "Mating" into "Description". I think the description needs a restructure, but I can't make concrete suggestions as I know very little of the facts (only what the article's told me so far). I think it's best to point out up-front that appearance varies in several ways: "normal" vs mating; 3 moults, incl intermediate stage; 3 male forms plus female form;. In a situation like this I'd probably create a sandbox page to try things out - my own sandox is more like a quarry! --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(no longer needed, resolved by other means --Philcha (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
the comparison is with the juvenile Ruff, which is described as such - female is only relevant because it is a similar size, juvenile male Ruff is much bigger than Sharp-tailed jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "The Buff-breasted Sandpiper also resembles a small juvenile Ruff, but even the female Ruff is noticeably larger than the sandpiper, with a longer bill, more rotund body and scaly upperparts" - leapin' lizards, Batman! I think you have to explain what "scaly" means in this context. --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
scaly-looking jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
description by year is more normal for birds (except raptors) because it often links with plumage stages rather than exact calendar ages jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "since they have a lower body mass and a slower weight increase than adults, it may be that energy constraints during migration are the main reason of the delayed moult":
    • Green tickY Need to explain "slower weight increase than adults" as non-ornithologists, incl me, generally think birds grow like cray in first year then slow down. --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juveniles certainly grow very fast, but second year birds are near adult. I'm just stating a fact here, I can't explain why they are less bulky jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done"energy constraints during migration" needs explanation. E.g. "because they need to rebuild mass / energy reserves after migration"? Or "migration has reduced their mass and energy resevers, and their main need is still to grow to adult size"? --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and it may be that the demands made on their energy reserves during the migration flight are the main reason of the delayed moult. jimfbleak (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "Juveniles moulted into their first winter body plumage during late September to November," the timespan looks earlier than for adults. Does that mean it's their first moult out of chick plumage? --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The juvenile plumage is the first stage after the downy non-flying chick plumage jimfbleak (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not say so? E.g. " ... from their chick plumage to their first winter body plumage ..."? Some readers will know even less ornithology than I do. --Philcha (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juveniles moulted from their first summer body plumage into their first winter plumage... (not chick plumage, they have to lose that before they can fly jimfbleak (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much clearer. --Philcha (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

[edit]
  •  Done I think this section should explain up-front that most populations are migratory, and distinguish between breeding, non-breeding and permanent sites. How you structure it after that involves deciding whether to group by population (pop A winters at X, breeds at Y and migrates via Z) or to describe each type of site then the migrations. Again, you know the material so it's your call. --Philcha (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy about about splitting migration around habitat. I've added In Great Britain and parts of coastal western Europe, birds may be present all year. "Permanent" may not be accurate - the winter and summer birds might not be the same (Black-tailed Godwit is present all year in the UK, but the breeding birds depart in autumn to be replaced by winterers from Iceland, which can be distinguished on size and plumage, unlike ruff)
I take your point about "permanent". However I'm less happy with the structure than first time round, possibly because I was focussing on phrasing and refs the first time. My inclination would be to take a top-down approach, e.g.: it's migratory, with winter quarters in warm regions and summer breeding grounds in sub-Arctic regions, and less-defined areas in W Europe; in both "seasons" it inhabits wetlands (describe); identify breeding grounds; identify winter quarters; describe migrations an dmention that non-breeders stay in winter quarters; fit gregariousness in where appropriate. --Philcha (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ruff is a migratory species, breeding in wetlands in colder regions of northern Eurasia, and wintering in the tropics, mainly in Africa. There is a limited overlap of the summer and winter ranges in western Europe. intro sentence - is this enough?
Oh, yes (waggling jowls) --Philcha (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done except lek, already linked twice jimfbleak (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we still arguing about Ctenophore? :-) --Philcha (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
removed margins jimfbleak (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumable there is an optimum, and overgrazing is mentioned later, but no specific figures - "moderately" is probably the key word jimfbleak (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Would the distribution map (currently in info box), not be more useful here? BTW the permanent sites (coded green) are pretty near invisible at the any reasonable img size, how about making them red? Or even a darker green? --Philcha (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are standard colours and placement for bird maps. The areas in which they are year round are tiny, but readily visible when the thumb is clicked - which is the point of thumbs jimfbleak (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thrilled about the poor visibility, but take your point about standard colours.
What about placement?? -Philcha (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost in the taxobox, unless there are multiple maps (I only know of one article with that) jimfbleak (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you meant by that, but I'll let FAC worry about it. --Philcha (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "When not breeding, a wider range of shallow wetlands is used, ..." - "When not breeding, the birds use a wider range of shallow wetlands, ..."? --Philcha (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the birds use a wider range of shallow wetlands, such as irrigated fields, lake margins, and mining subsidence and other floodlands jimfbleak (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY "mining subsidence" is not a type of habitat, it's the cause of a type of habitat.

--Philcha (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above jimfbleak (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done jimfbleak (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the hayman ref applies, do I need to repeat it at the end of the relevant bit as well as the next sentence? jimfbleak (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added territorial to make it clearer that this is the main aim jimfbleak (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I've misread The social implications of traditional use of lek sites in the ruff Philomachus pugnax (end of p 215), getting there early correlates w reproductive success. I think e.g "and enables territorial males to reach the breeding grounds as early as possible, which appears to improve their chances of mating[ref]" would be clearer, and forges an implicit connection to the theory of evolution. --Philcha (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
enables territorial males to reach the breeding grounds as early as possible, improving their chances of successful mating. jimfbleak (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done The current sentence structure looks bass ackwards to me, I'd prefer (subject to previous comment) "increases the male's chances of a successful early return to its breeding area." --Philcha (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and increases the territorial male's chances jimfbleak (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "In the case of the Ruff, the larger size of the male may assist its wintering in colder regions than its mate" looks like academic-speak. How about e.g. "Male Ruffs may be able to tolerate colder winter conditions because they are larger than females"? --Philcha (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rephrased as above without bergmann's rule, which doesn't really apply to differences between the sexes jimfbleak (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed to route, although I think the meaning is obvious jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wan't being entirely facetious. It appears normal usage in the literature, but is not everyday useage. --Philcha (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
relaced except "use fat as a fuel"
  • Green tickY Re "The staging posts are closer together than the theoretical maximum travel distance calculated from the mean body mass" is there an article you can w-link to on the relevant theory? --Philcha (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only the existing reference jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
at particular transit sites to feed, jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed to stopover -I knew there was a better word
  • I don't think referring to other species' "refuelling strategies" explains anything. After reading Stop-over strategy of Ruff Philomachus pugnax during the spring migration, as far as I can see: it says nothing about the Godwit or Redshank; the conclusions are hedged about with qualifications; the authors seem confident about optimal vs sub-optimal stopover sites (which might be the "site-dependent refuelling strategy" of the abstract; they tentatively conclude that flight stages are shorter than maxima predicted from body mass; but they note that the leanest birds found were leaner than theoretical minima, which suggest the theory is not robust; and there's no mention of "strategy" any where except the title. I'm not sure if any usable conclusions can be extracted, except perhaps the tentative but obvious one that the birds allow some safety margin between stopovers. My impression is that study of Ruff migration strategy is still at the early data-gathering stage, see e.g. Migrating Ruffs Philomachus pugnax through Europe, spring 1998, whihc cites Baccetti et al. --Philcha (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...calculated from the mean body mass, and provide evidence of a migration strategy using favoured intermediate sites. removed ref to other species, but I think it is clear that the birds are using "traditional" stopovers, not just landing at random within their safety margin, and i think that amounts to a strategy. It's common for several wader species to turn up at the same sites year after year on migration. jimfbleak (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - "strategy" w/o explanation bugs me because the word is so vague - compare e.g. "foragig strategy" and "reproductive strategy". --Philcha (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oops, wrong url, fixed now jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking this is more about metabolic chemistry, and apparently shows a general contrast between birds and mammals - not surprising as their lineages diverged very early in amniote history, about 313 million years ago, (see cladogram at Evolutionary_history_of_life#Dinosaurs.2C_birds_and_mammals) and hence different routes to endothermy (see cladogram at Paleontology#Classifying_ancient_organisms). Leave it in for now, but ... --Philcha (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, ...mainly in Africa, some Siberian breeders undertaking an annual round trip of up to 30,000 km (18,500 mi) to the West African wintering grounds. plus ref jimfbleak (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, a bit of wow factor is nice for spicing up big articles. --Philcha (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour

[edit]
  • Green tickY I'd have thought it was more logical to place "Feeding" and any other non-reproductive behaviour first, in case mating and nesting cause changes or in case "normal" feeding & territorial behaviour explains aspects of reproductive behaviour. --Philcha (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is the normal order, and I think it's swings and roundabout as to whether the alternative is better
None known, apart from the predators later jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mating

[edit]
and it is the only bird in which males have genetically determined differences in plumage and mating behaviour.[28] There are three male plumage types, one of which mimics the female. jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. --Philcha (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "The male-plumaged birds show two types of appearance and behaviour ..." is slightly misleading. I think it would be more accurate & informative to say, "Males show three types of appearance and behaviour ..." to include the female impersonators. --Philcha (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see above jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's worded now has a really odd sentence structure - "There are three male plumage types, one of which mimics the female. The typical males show two types of appearance and behaviour; the territorial males have strongly coloured black or chestnut ruffs and stake out and occupy small mating territories in the lek. They actively court females ..." I think the problem is that the intro sentence is half-hearted - this seems to be a difference in style between you & me, I'm keener on signpost phrases and short passages. In this case we don't want the readers as confused as the birds, so I think good sign-posting is needed. How about e.g. "There are three male forms: the typical territorial males, satellite males and the very rare female impersonators. The typical males show two types of appearance and behaviour; the territorial males ..."? --Philcha (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are three male forms: the territorial males, satellite males which have a white neck ruff, and a very rare, recently discovered variant with female-like plumage. The territorial males... jimfbleak (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works a lot more smoothly, thanks.
I'm sorry, I missed something last time round - Genetic polymorphism ... gives approx breakdown 84% territorial, 16% satellite; and Permanent female mimics ... very strongly implies the % of female impersonators is minute. I think that's worth adding - it suggests territorials tolerate satellites because there are not enough satellites for it to be worthwhile for territorials to chase them away, see Genetic equilibrium. --Philcha (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd already given the 16% satellite and 1% cross-dressers, now added the 84% for completeness. Total not 100 because of rounding and likelihood that 84/16 is for the obvious males. The reason the satellites are tolerated is in the text - females are attracted more to leks with both types jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to put the smallest group as "less than 1%" which fits in with the information in the references, and does not give an obvious 101% error. Snowman (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "the resident or independent males" is not the term you use in the rest, and is rather nondescript. I prefer "territorial males", which is more descriptive and which you use lower down. --Philcha (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is fairly complex for non-specialist readers, and I think consistency is important. --Philcha (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The gene for the territorial plumage and behaviour is recessive, and is only shown by males carrying two copies of the gene. jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added name origin jimfbleak (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that kind of lateral "hook" helps readers to remember. --Philcha (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added a ref to a dominant gene
Great find! However it's a preliminary result from on-going research, so I think it needs qualification. --Philcha (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified as prelim research jimfbleak (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gr8, thnx! --Philcha (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
added "main" jimfbleak (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
boldly fixed jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jim'll fix it :-) --Philcha (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nesting and survival

[edit]
done jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "The breeding density can reach 129 individuals per square kilometre" looks a bit of a stretch to me. The source up to 129/km2 but nothing about breeding - although the density was measured in N. Russia, where they go in the breeding season. I'd strike "breeding" and put the sentence in "Habitat". --16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
done jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Predators of waders breeding in wet grasslands include birds. ..; foxes occasionally take waders, and the impact of feral cats and stoats is unknown. having said that, stoats are a nightmare for most breeding birds jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sources are like buses, ... --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adults seem to show little evidence of external parasites,[46] but may have significant disease levels in their tropical wintering grounds. Ruff occur in inland freshwater habitats where the likelihood of avian malaria infection is high,[47] and they might be expected to invest strongly in their immune systems;[48] however, an analysis showed that that this bird actually has surprisingly low levels of immune responses on at least one measure of resistance jimfbleak (talk)
"on at least one measure of resistance" is a nice finesse.
Unfortunately you seem to have messed up the refs for a couple of sentences. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duh... I seem to have pasted back something i was copying to here - I think it's fixed jimfbleak (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Ruff occur in inland freshwater habitats where the likelihood of avian malaria infection is high,[46] and they might be expected to invest strongly in their immune systems;[47] however, an analysis showed that that this bird actually has surprisingly low levels of immune responses" is very dubious. Variation in the innate and acquired arms of the immune system among five shorebird species says, "It is perhaps surprising that ruffs exhibited low levels of immune response, as they occur in inland freshwater habitats where the likelihood of avian malaria infection is high (Mendes et al., 2005). This environment presumably would select ruffs to invest strongly in their immune systems (Piersma, 1997), but this hypothesis was not supported here. Note, however, that we did not measure cell-mediated immunity, a type of response known to be involved in the control of malaria parasites", i.e. it may heve better malaria resistance then the study's results suggested. --Philcha (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as above jimfbleak (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above, unfortunately. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above jimfbleak (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding

[edit]
killed the Redshank
With your little bow and arrow? --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It breeds in freshwater habitat, but uses a wider range of wet areas for feeding. I think this is opportunist behaviour at a rich food resource. They don't probe in salt water in the way they do in marshes, but just pick the zillions of flies off the surface. It the same as gulls catching flying ants in the air when they swarm, or kestrels hunting insects on foot - it's not typical, but why pass up an easy feast jimfbleak (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And we call them "bird brains"! --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with humans

[edit]

Status

[edit]
done
It's easily done with factual material, rephrased jimfbleak (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rephrased - I can't do much about the iucn definition other than say what it is. jimfbleak (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I don't see how the source supports "Fossils from the Pleistocene suggest that this species bred further south in Europe than it does now in the cool periods between glaciations." The most relevant pasaage I can see in the source is "Pleistocene find spots of particular species now living in northern Europe (Scandinavia) are situated to the south of the border line of the maximum transgression of the ice sheet in the Upper Pleniglacial of the last glaciation" (p 251) which is just a verbose way of saying "During the last Pleistocene glaciation they lived south of the ice sheets" (wow!) I'm also not sure what the value of this sentence is. --Philcha (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fossils from the Pleistocene suggest that this species bred further south in Europe in the cool periods between glaciations than it does now. does this order make more sense? The point of this, other than mentioning the fossil record, was to link to the following bit suggesting that it is an indicator of climate change, retreating north as global temperatures rise. In the cool of the Pleistocene, it could breed further south jimfbleak (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This climate change business is complex, see Younger Dryas, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age. IMO the cited source fails to consider this, but your "has led to suggestions" is an appropriate qualification. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with humans

[edit]
I included these to demonstrate large scale hunting of waterbirds in the Ruff's wintering range. Waterbird hunting doesn't target particular species, just whatever is there, be it Ruff, godwits, Greenshanks or any other wader. I think there is a point to these refs, but I'll chop it if you think it is inappropriate or unnecessary jimfbleak (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've temporarily run out of brimstone, so OK. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The link checker report shows:

I don't understand this - as far as I can see, all cite webs have an access date, and cite journal doesn't need them, since any link is to an on-line version of a "real document" and unlikely to change. Linnaeus is linked in the taxobox, the taxonomy section and in the cite book reference for Systema Naturae (in references). Surely that's enough? Could you give specific missed access dates/ author links?jimfbleak (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Green tickY The wikilinks report shows 1 link to a DAB page, but it's the "For other uses" item at the top, so that's OK. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images

[edit]
I'm reluctant to do this unless it's essential. No images sandwich text, except the first, which must go in taxonomy, and none overlap sections, at least on my thumb sizes. If I have to take out images, some of the remainder will face out of the text or not conform with layout guidelines, either way it would be picked up at FAC as a breach of MoS. Unless you view this as a deal breaker, I'd rather leave as it is and take my chances at FAC jimfbleak (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or let FAC take its chances with you :-) --Philcha (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Green tickY "This highly gregarious sandpiper is migratory, wintering, sometimes in huge flocks, in southern and western Europe, Africa, southern Asia and Australia" suffers colonic comma congestion. I've had a go at copyediting - is the result OK? --Philcha (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fine, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Predators of chicks and eggs include mammals such as foxes, feral cats and stoats, ..." is inconsistent with section "Nesting and survival", where "Predators of waders breeding in wet grasslands include birds such as large gulls, Common Raven, Carrion and Hooded Crows, and Great and Arctic Skuas; foxes occasionally take waders, and the impact of feral cats and stoats is unknown". --Philcha (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
inserted wader - I think this is OK, because predators of wetland waders are likely to eat any species they can catch jimfbleak (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
now The Ruff normally feeds using a steady walk and pecking action, selecting food items by sight
  •  Done I see nothing about postage stamps in the main text. Postal authorities will do anything for what they see as easy money, so I'd scrap that sentence. --Philcha (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it out to the "Relationships with humans" section, and then decided to completely delete it, as there are a lot of birds on stamps and it may not be significant in itself. But it could be restored if needed, if it is thought to reflect anything important about the birds. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping someone would chop this good faith late addition from another editor jimfbleak (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 editors agree - that's worrying :-) --Philcha (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has The head and neck ornaments are erected as part of an elaborate display at a lek in which three differently plumaged types of male utilise a variety of strategies to gain access to females, including a tiny minority that mimic females. What else do I need to add in the lead for this. jimfbleak (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

[edit]

Green tickY "Territorial plumage and behaviour is a recessive characteristic, and is only shown by males carrying two copies of the relevant allele (variant of a gene)" This may be oversimplified and I can read it in different ways. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a best guess at what is means and reworded it. If this is what you meant it to say, then I think it is fixed. Snowman (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then please provide a diff. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed from above to:"Territorial plumage and behaviour are inherited as recessive characteristics." Snowman (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enboldened text

[edit]

Green tickY Is there a reason why "reeve" is emboldened in the introduction? Snowman (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative name (for the female) jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the alternative name for the female be emboldened? "Hen" an alternative name for the female of many bird species in not even mentioned on many articles. Snowman (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, debolded jimfbleak (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
 If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.Unsigned paragraph by Philcha (talk) made at 08:07, 9 June 2009; see this edit.


Conclusion of review

[edit]

I'm very pleased to say that this article meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images. Many thanks for the work you've put into this! --Philcha (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

thanks for edits, I've repeated the Hayman ref for Senegal jimfbleak (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a GA review in progress, your edits are actually likely to cause confusion. If you think improvements are necessary or desirable, please add comments on the GA review page, which you can access via the article's Talk page. Jim (editor) and I (reviewer) have put a lot of work into this, and I do not intend to recheck the entire article because of undiscussed edits in the middle of the review. --Philcha (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed User Jimfbleak's message on the Bird talk page, and I decided to help out. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware only major or controversial changes to an article necessitate prior discussion on the talk page. I find that these sort of uncontroversial edits are generally welcome during GA and FA reviews. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I notice that this edit is new material but unsupported by a ref - i.e. violates WP:NOR. --Philcha (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call it original research as the calorific values of various metabolised substances are very well studied indeed. Anyway, I see it as "common knowledge" that was not in an inline ref, so I have opted to revert the edit of mine that you refer to. Snowman (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicks

[edit]

It would not affect GA probably, but with a possible FA in mind: I think a bit more should be said about the chicks in the main body of the article, and I have added "Young chicks are able to mobilise soon after hatching." to the introduction, which may need further elaboration. The word "precocial" sounds like jargon. When do chicks leave the nest? What do the chicks feed on? When are they independent? How does the female look after them and protect them? It would be good if the article had some photographs of mobile chicks. Snowman (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"precocial" usually means mobile within an hour or so of birth / hatching - or, if the source is not specific, "mobile very shortly after ...". Re pic, I suspect chicks tend to look rather alike except for those with highly specialised bills, e.g ducks and raptors.
Jim might be able to answer the rest, if the sources are kind. --Philcha (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is usually very little information about chicks, esp of precocial species, which don't sit nicely in a nest waiting to be observed. Even non-free images of chicks of wader species are hard to come by, although BWP has an illustration. As above, chicks of precocial species vamoose soon after hatching. It is likely that they eat insects, and that the adults' role is limited to deterring predators and maybe brooding at night. These are typical behaviours of most waders and other open country species, but during extensive searching I found nothing that could be referenced to this species. jimfbleak (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Migration

[edit]

I am interested in the manor of the flying during migration having watched a long column of about 200 birds (unidentified species) migrating north in the spring, which were flapping their wings; however, when they found an air thermal about two thirds of the birds used the air thermal to elevate them significantly, and the third of the birds that were ahead of the air thermal flu onwards without taking the upward lift. The article mentions migration in flocks but not of the manor of flight - Do they fly in conformation? Do they use air thermals? How to they cross the Caspian Sea? I wondered if migration needs to be included in a subheading. Snowman (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you ask can be answered, but isn't sourceable.
  • The use of thermals is restricted to large broad-winged birds such as large birds of prey (vultures, eagles, buzzards) and storks. Most other birds, including all the waders, are too small, too narrow-winged or don't soar anyway (geese and swans). Since active flapping flight is the default mode, it's unlikely to be mentioned.
  • Again, flying in conformation (eg a V formation) tends to be used most by large birds such as geese, where the aerodynamics are improved by having another bird in front. Other gregarious birds tend to fly in unstructured flocks. It's the default so rarely mentioned except for a few species like Dunlin, Red Knot and European Starling where the sheer size of the flocks is notable.
  • Why the Caspian in particular - the Mediterranean is a bigger barrier? Most migratory birds are perfectly capable of crossing the Mediterranean, including much smaller birds like warblers (for example, the Sedge Warbler can do 3000 miles non-stop). The exception is the large broad-winged soaring, birds such as large birds of prey and storks, which have to cross at the narrowest points like Gibraltar and the Dardanelles, or go round east through Israel, because there are no thermals over water. This means that huge numbers pass through the narrow sea crossings or Israel at migration times, which is readily sourced. Direct crossing is standard and rarely if ever mentioned.
In researching this, I've not come across anything significant about migration that's not in the article, and the refs Shyamal found don't have anything that needs adding either. The Ruff is unexceptional in that like the vast majority of migratory birds, it actively flaps, goes directly over water, and doesn't have obvious flight formations. It doesn't set any records for length of flight, so the flying is basically standard and unlikely to be mentioned as such. jimfbleak (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I should have said Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea (and not Caspian Sea). Flock cohesion is another aspect of birds flying is a large flock. How do they keep together is a large flock when it is misty or foggy? Snowman (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many birds call in flight (not the Ruff), and species like the Redwing, which migrate at at night, can be heard from the ground as they fly over in the autumn. Migrants tend to commence flight in clear weather or moonlit nights, when sight or calls would keep them together, and they would be above the level of low mist or fog. Poor weather can, of course, occur en route, and flocks can become separated. Young birds on their first migration are particularly likely to become disorientated. 16:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary use?

[edit]

This article was given the primary use by this edit, which wrongly claimed the collar sense was derived from the bird, when - as the article now says - it seems to be the other way round. Given that the bird is not found in North America or the UK (now), I'm very doubtful that it is the primary meaning - most English-speakers will never have heard of it. It may well appear in various bird lists and templates, but those are not relevant for establishing if there is a primary usage. This should be Ruff (bird) and the disam page have the plain term. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for just "Ruff" gives the two Wikipedia articles (collar and bird) followed by the RSPB article on the bird then lots of stuff unrelated to either. The Ruff actually still breeds in small numbers in the UK, and is seen in large numbers on migration (I saw a sizeable flock at Minsmere on Saturday), and smaller numbers in winter.
If you want to follow this up can I make two requests? First, please raise the issue at the project page for discussion. Secondly, this article is in the middle of an FAC, so I'd be very grateful if you could wait a week or so until the FAC has finished. I'm very reluctant to see the article name changed in mid-flight (so to speak). Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the ruff as an item of clothing hasn't really been fashionable since the Stuarts, the primary usage for the last 300 years has been the bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 37 (is it) breeding males in the UK, according to the RSPB; information that could usefully be added here. I won't do anything for a while. Both sorts of ruff are certainly today about equally rare in the English-speaking world, but I would suggest that a far greater number of English-speakers have heard of the item of clothing than the bird. I am suggesting there is no primary meaning, but if there were, the collar would have the stronger claim, imo. But then I'm not a birder. If you don't believe me, ask your non-birder friends what a ruff is. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the status in the UK, I'd rather leave as is. For birds that breed in the UK, there is always far more available for that country than the rest of the range, and even in its present form, where I'd been consciously trying to keep it balanced, one FAC reviewer thought it was too slanted towards the UK. Its the same with species that have a range that includes the US - its easy to lose balance because of the masses of data from that country and a paucity from elsewhere. The article has its gold star now, so I'm happy for the debate to start at the project page. Personally, I don't like a disamb where there are two reasonable candidates for primary use. It just means that whichever you are searching for, you don't get there on the first attempt. I suspect that there are more searches for the bird than the collar on Wikipedia, but I haven't checked. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The German link for some reason does not lead me to the article page[1], but to [2]. I attempted fixing that even by inserting de:Kampfl%C3%A4ufer, but to no avail, it still remains the wrong target. Can anyone fix that? G Purevdorj (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: it might be worth noting the French (Combattant varié) and German (Kampfläufer) names for the bird remain linked to combat. Not essential for the article, but interesting nonetheless. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The German link is working fine for me, so I'm not sure what the problem is/was. MeegsC | Talk 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno whether action has been taken, but it works now (I'm using the same computer as before). G Purevdorj (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA?

[edit]

I can hardly believe that this article made it to the front page without the word "bird" being mentioned anywhere in the first paragraph! Neither "wader" or "sandpiper" indicate what the thing actually is. A wading, piping what? I've got a mate called Dunc who both wades (jogs along the beach, actually) and blows the pipes, but he doesn't usually do them both at the same time. Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the correction, although the photo gives a bit of a clue (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

If the bird gets it's name from the article of clothing, then shouldn't that article be called "Ruff" and this one be "Ruff(bird)"206.123.191.246 (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote myself from a few paragraphs up "Given that the ruff as an item of clothing hasn't really been fashionable since the Stuarts, the primary usage for the last 300 years has been the bird". Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Egyptian polymath Imhotep hasn't been fashionable since the third century BCE, but Imhotep doesn't direct readers to Imhotep (musician). I would suggest that more people are more familiar with the item of clothing than the bird, therefore there should be a disambiguation page at least. PICURMN (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PICURMN:, there is a disambiguation page. It's linked right at the top of the article! MeegsC (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific name

[edit]

The BOU, at least, now has this as a member of the genus Calidris, see the 2013 BOU British List. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.6.243 (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of consistency, the Bird project adopted the IOC list as a standard, rather than decide between differing regional decisions/latest research, so, for the time being at least, we stick with Philomachus pugnax Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ruff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruff. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ruff (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruff_(bird)&oldid=1193659358"