Talk:Huia

Huia pronunciation

Where is the pronunciation for Huia?

very roughly HOO-ee-uh. Kahuroa 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added an IPA pronunciation into the intro. I'm no expert on this so feel free to correct if you think its wrong Goldfinger820 (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

corrected. You had y for the u - its definitely not y. Maybe slightly more fronted than English, but closer to a short version of German Kuh than müde. And I wouldn't have thought the h was as strong as in English ahead, more like house. Generally in Māori the usual spelling IS the IPA Kāhuroa (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

yep makes sense cheers Goldfinger820 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive blank space below "decline and extinction" section

Can someone please get rid of it? I've had a a go but don't really know how to do it. Kotare 04:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the space you mean. Maybe it's just something to do with your own computers display or resolution? Kahuroa 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

Righto I just finished a big overhaul of this article, expanded out the description and 4 of the 5 sections about Huia bio. substantially, added section on place in maori culture and expanded info. on decline and efforts at conservation. It would be nice to get some sort of picture/photo for the last section; a photo of dead Huia or of NZ deforestation would be great.. if you know of anything along these lines please sing out. Kotare 09:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the Behaviour section I wanted to split as it is a bit long, but wasn't sure which comma to convert to a full stop....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was too long, I changed it around and turned it into three sentences, and also made Huia singular instead of plural for consistency. I think there are a quite a few sentences in the new sections that need attention, and sometimes one sentence seems to say much the same as the preceding one. Will take another look later Kahuroa 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kotare, can you tell me more about the 'worn as hats' quoted from MBL? Was that by Māori? Kahuroa 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To-do list for FAC

I reckon this is gettin' there.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I introduced a taxonomy and naming section which several other bird FAs have, it still needs something about alternate names and relation to the other wattlebirds etc. I haven't read the paper yet.

Contradiction?

This sentence at the end: 'The Huia had been little studied by naturalists before it was driven to extinction.' Does this contradict the other statements in the text that the extinction of the Huia was partly caused by naturalists hunting specimens? They didn't study the birds they shot? Kahuroa 20:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kahuroa, sorry for the late reply. From the material I read while researching to prepare the body of text I contributed to this article earlier this year, the gist I got was that collectors ran around the North Island shooting far too many huia for museums around the world which would stuff the birds - these collectors didn't really give a toss about science they were just looking to make a quick buck. Detailled information about the birds morphology from all these specimens that were shot exists but almost no research was done on their ecology and behaviour. Kotare (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nominating for WP:GAN as a staging point?

This is for all who contributed alot (Kahuroa and Kotare etc.) - do you guys want this nominated at WP:GAN as a good staging point? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Casliber, sorry about the late response I haven't been active on wikipedia for months but am keen to get back into it and it would be great to pick up where I left off close to a year ago now with this article. I think the GA nomination is a great idea, it would be a good incentive to really get into fleshing it out. A collab. would be ideal I think.. At present it's a bit out of proportion as there is lots about Huia and people and little about it's basic biology, I have the HANZAB article on the species here and that itself and the sources it mentions should be of great use for developing this aspect of the article. Stay in touch about this idea, I look forward to developing the article more. Cheers, Kotare (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Choice! I keep pumping the biological info in and a couple of us will give it a massage, spit'n'boot polish and the you can post it at GAN. Not too far off. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• From the lead The Huia is notable for the remarkable degree of sexual dimorphism in bill shape. - surely that should be The Huia was.... ? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like the 'scientific present in the past' tense, but you're right. Like Kotare I had a bit of a wikibreak a while back but if I can help... (BTW I have also been getting images from flickr for other NZ birds like Kererū and Kākā which I think will help us move those articles along the GA path) No one's taking many pix of huia these days tho Kāhuroa (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Section heading

Human induced? surely just extinction will suffice as a section heading. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit and Notes

OK, I took a look at the article and had a few questions.

The end of the Ecology paragraph mentions that there are sound recordings of a human imitating a Huia at the NZ Sound Archives. Can a weblink and proper citation be provided? Is the file here the one mentioned? (yeah, the name - McPherson Natural History Unit - gives it away)

In the reproduction section, it notes that breeding took place "in the early summer" from one source, and in November from a source in front of me. Is November early summer in New Zealand, or is one source wrong/drawing from different primary sources? (we-ell, Summer is Dec/Jan/Feb traditionally...so they are similar. Will have another look at my sources too)

The last section details how cloning may have been funded and underway in 1999. Obviously it has not happened yet, but is there an update? (good point - will look)

Per the headings, while they are colorfully named, the two under Relationship with humans could probably be renamed “In Culture” and “Extinction,” or something like that. (done/agreed)

Other than that, it looks pretty good. Shame that there isn’t more on its behavior, but you can’t do much in terms of new research with extinct species. Oh, and could someone double-check my copyedit to make sure I didn’t change some weird British thing? Thanks, and good job on this article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding cloning, there appears to be zip since the 199 mentions. Weird. Question is, how best to describe it...or just drop it altogether...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could round it off by mentioning views on how feasible cloning might be, like those at the end of this article. -- Avenue (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha, nice one. I think that will cap it nicely. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and something so obvious I can't believe I missed it- is there any data on the bird's weight? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Buller gave the weight of "a recently killed specimen" as 14½ oz. (sex not mentioned).[1] -- Avenue (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.A Well written article

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well written, but few sections have out of place details. (see below)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Review 1

First of all, happy new year and I appreciate the effort of the editors. Before being promoted to Good Article, I request the editors to look into the below comments. (Feel free to strike the comments which the editors view as invalid):

• In section "Distribution and habitat", the opening line, "Subfossil and midden remains of the Huia have been found throughout the North Island from Northland to Wellington." can this be rephrased as "The Huia mainly inhabited the mountainous regions [...] where the Subfossil and midden remains have been found"? I am suggesting this because by rephrasing like this we will be directly answering the Section's heading in the introductory line, rather than leaving the reader to make the interpretation. (done)

From what I gather lowland forest destruction was major facotr in the bird's decline and i'm fairly sure that they were found in lowland forests too. Therefore I think this change, while it makes a lot of sense structurally, could be misleading. From memory various sources disagree over whether they spent the winter in lowland forests and summer in the mountains.. clarifying this point is something i can look into from the 24th- the 3rd Kotare (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• In section "Ecology and behaviour", "This bird was diurnal, so that its nocturnal prey would be in its nest."--I could not understand this line. its nest --> their nests (prey is a collective noun. The prey referred to here is/are the nocturnal critters the bird ate, which would be in their lairs/burrows/whatever in the daytime. 'nest' is a bad word and I am trying to think of a better one.)
  • Pls work on this line, since the bird was diurnal, "nocturnal prey" seems odd, and also "Its diet consisted of insects and their larvae, including weta and huhu beetle, spiders, as well as small berries", so none of these preys can be in the nest. Pls work on this line., I feel that this line can be removed, since I dont see any much value addition (not sure let the editors decide.) Bluptr (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed - added not much and made little sense. Kahuroa (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

good move, didn't make much sense - pretty sure I didn't write that (!)Kotare (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• In section "Feeding", the line "While sexual dimorphism in bill shape is found in other birds, it was most pronounced in the Huia. The woodhoopoes and certain birds of paradise[16] show a similar, but less extreme, dimorphism, and the bills of many hummingbirds show sexual difference in length which is not linked to variations in body size." seems out of place. (ok, moved to description section and incorporated there. Unreferenced bit removed)

• In section "Relationship with humans", can the phrases, "In some legends," and "In other traditions," mention the legends and traditions? Not strictly necessary, I am suggesting this because the above lines are consider Weasel words. (agree that phrasing is not optimal. My problem is I did not add this bit and do not have the book, so I do not know which legends mention what. The regular editors are less active for the time being and I can ask to see if this can be addressed) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section, using a source I have (Orbell) and removing references to a source used by another seemingly now inactive author. Orbell is probably the original source for the comment about the dreams anyway. Kahuroa (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could be more active!! i really do, haha. I will look into this if I can get the chance.Kotare (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The following para, "The bold and inquisitive nature of the Huia made it particularly easy to capture or kill.[8][9] Māori attracted the Huia by imitating its call and then captured it with a tari (a carved pole with a noose at the end) or snare or killed it with clubs or long spears. Often they exploited the strong pair bond by capturing one of a pair, which would then call out, attracting its mate which could then be easily captured.[9][10] Although not usually hunted for food, the Huia was considered excellent eating.[5]" seems out of place in the "In Culture" section, should this be in some section related to "Extinction"? (this is tricky; I see your point, but I note that numbers were reduced by maori but did not drop catastrophically until europeans came, so it is not strictly related to extinction either. I am in two minds about moving it. I need to sleep soon so will sleep on it) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

how about keeping it as it is and then mentioning that the hunting by maori did not threaten the existance of the bird in the "extinction" section?Kotare (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• "shark teeth" should probably be "shark tooth" :) (hmm. my take on rereading it is that the feathers and teeth are in plural (talking about trade) and the greenstone is used in a collective rather than singular sense. Making it 'feather' and 'tooth' I feel makes it sound really odd) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• The line, "New Zealand and the Cook Islands have produced several postage stamps portraying the Huia" , can we use, "released" instead of "produced several"? (done)

• The line, "Female Huia beaks have been known to be used in the creation of jewellery such as brooches" is out of place in "Extinction" and the better place for this is, "In culture" (?) (good spot, found a good place for it)

• "Further reading" comes before "External links" as per WP:MOS (done)

• After reading the entire article, I think the lead should be expanded. The lead is very small. (now expanded. Is this enough? I could probably increase a bit more)
  • For me, the lead looks good enough. Bluptr (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would request the editors to use Citation templates, (this is not strictly necessary to be implemented for a Good article). (working on it)

• The line, "Contrary to popular opinion, meals were not often shared by a pair (although such behaviour may have occasionally served to strengthen the pair bond). A pair did not cooperate in feeding, at least not in a strict sense. " seems to be Original research, can the editors please verify it? (agree it sounds odd. I will ask those who added the material. For the time being, I have commented out the first sentence while awaiting reference check, as it is the bit hwich sound interpretive)

• In the line, "following Māori settlement (see below)." , the link of below is broken, can the editors pls check this.

(unnecessary really, so removed, article not long enough to warrant internal links) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Bluptr (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The article is very well written, there is no point in delaying the GA status, there are few very minor issues above, which the editors can continue to work upon... Pls work on the article and make it a FA. Cheers --Bluptr (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. The two main content contributors (i.e. the ones with some of the obscure books) are having a bit of a break, and will hopefully return some time this year to be part of an FA push..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hola all, I will have the oppurtunity to get back into this article quite soon, if everything goes according to plan. I feel that it is still rather "bottom heavy" - when I did my big push on it back in '07, I focussed on the place in maori culture and extinction sections but never got around to working on the biology. It will be fairly straightfoward for me to get all the old sources i used back together again and continue where I left off however. If I can find the time to rip into this later this month, i will consult with you (Casliber) and Kahuroa as to how to push for FA. Respect to you guys for all the hard work you have done on it so far! Kotare (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Major expansion

I am almost done with a new set of contributions which has greatly expanded this article.. I'm just going to chuck some more stuff from HANZAB in about breeding now. Not all sources are created equal and to be honest, I think nearly all, if not all the major, reliable, sources with comprehensive information on the Huia have now been accessed and trawled for info - there are many other, more specific sources which might add the odd tidbit of information - but at the end of the day, in terms of all the information that exists on the Huia (and you must remember that it's biology was not well studied before it went extinct) this article is approaching complete saturation. I would be interested to know how close to FA we're getting now.. can't be far off at all.

There's still a little room for expansion of some of the minor biology aspects (specifically calls/vocalizations) but certainly the stuff on its relationships with humans is pretty much done and dusted. I think a couple of extra images would really add to this article though;

• We could do a distribution map for the Huia showing its former range in the North Island before maori arrived, then showing its range at the start of european colonization. We could use a single colour (I was thinking red or green) and have it a lighter shade for the earlier range and a darker shade for the 1840 range.

• A photo of NI lowland deforestation in the 19th/early 20th century would be a great complement to the text in the first part of the "extinction" section - apart from anything else, this is a big block of text and a nice black and white photo to break it up would make it look much better. If we have trouble finding one already online, I think I can get one for the forests around Levin from about 1907

Kotare (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of those are fantastic ideas. I have been making maps and am happy to do so if you have images of originals in books to email me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. Did a fairly cursory copy edit, and I have just three questions and a comment: 1: In Description, this (covered in brown) seems incomplete or maybe just slightly awkward: The immature Huia had duller plumage that was covered in brown - does it mean just brown?. 2: In Distribution and habitat: Does birds mean Huia in this passage or birds in general: Only a few birds are known from the extensive pitfall deposits in the karst - it wasn't clear which to me. 3: In Voice, a quote from hanzab 6: flute like - not flute-like? And the comment is that there seems to be a bit of editorialising in the extinction section - a bit of personal opinion and passion coming thru - might be better to use cited sources there. Kahuroa (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input guys. Casliber: thanks! I do not know of any existing range maps for the Huia but I can draw a rough one up and email it to you. Kahuroa: thanks for doing the copyedit, I've just looked through it and it's really improved the wording a lot. As for your questions: 1. Go with "flecked with brown" - I'm pretty sure that is what is meant. 2. Yes it does mean Huia specifically, probably worth changing 3. yes I agree. As for your comment, that's fine, WP has to be impartial and have a neutral tone after all.. but I am usually very pedantic with referencing and liberally pepper my edits with inline citations - so I can't imagine too much incorrect stuff is in there - I can see a few places where the wording could maybe be changed, however. Would you be able to identify the bits you're concerned about? - and then I can work on them. It will be easier if I do it, because I have most of the sources here with me already. Kotare (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Oh wait I bet you're concerned about this; 1.There were some attempts to conserve the species, but they were too few, poorly organised and poorly enforced legally. It would have been an uphill battle to save the Huia at a time when the conservation movement in New Zealand was still in its nascent stages and when the few people with an interest in saving the species were up against the strong market forces driving the hunting of the Huia and the clearance of its forest habitat, the two main causes of its extinction. and 2.The Kapiti attempt is documented as being particularly poorly managed,[3] which is presumably why they all failed. and 3.but these seem very poorly thought out given that it would be so easy for one of the pair to die, so that they could not produce young and also because a single pair hardly constitutes enough genetic variation to create a new, healthy population.. Yeah, know that I look at it some of that should probably go- can we discuss it a bit more first though? I'll be bold and prune it now and then we can discuss it more if need be.Kotare (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Should be looking better now, let me know if there are still any issues - particularly if some bits of info need inline citations for verifiability. Kotare (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that was the part in question. Stuff like when you say "slightly exasperating manner, the strange and contradictory" who is it exasperating? strange and contradictory in whose opinion? I'll leave it up to you to look at and/or fix as you see fit. Kahuroa (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

email away. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is worth a whirl at FAC - the only thing I'd do first is maybe consolidate the material on arboreal insectivore guilds in the one spot as it is in a couple of different places. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Kahuroa: yeah man, I mean you're right, the "exasperating" part.. it's "exasperating" me, of course, but to be honest I feel totally robotic giving a caption for that reference and not making some acknowledgment of how bizarre this passage is. My source described it as an "ambiguous attitude" and I just thought "contradictory" was a better way to describe it. I guess, maybe cull "exasperating" and "strange" but at the very least I think "Contradictory" should be left in there .. the author of Wild South relates this passage and makes similar comments too. I'll sleep on it for a bit.Casliber: sweet man, I'll try to get something out to you by the end of this week. I want to keep working on this article just to get a few last things done before we chuck it on to the stage of FA scrutiny, if that's cool. I just had another idea today.. will see if I can do anything about the guilds aspect. Kotare (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah K, totally see ur point. Maybe just a slight tone down eh. Kahuroa (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So when you guys gonna chuck it in the snake pit? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

argh, sorry man, I'm such a freaking wikiorge!here's the deal; I have been through pretty much every comprehensive information resource on Huia - I can tell you with confidence that the written coverage of this bird in the article in both biology and "Huia and humans" sections is approaching complete saturation - what I mean is that pretty much everything that is known about the bird is up there now, there is not much left to add at all.. so we're pretty sweet in that aspect, the major one. but Visually I think the article could really benefit from 3 more things 1. That distribution map - I contacted User:Msikma to ask if he knew where i could get a map to send to you Cas but he never replied.. KVanlerlinde (sp?) I think is the name of another user who has done similar maps who I will message now. Second, the deforestation photos.. I have the book with the photos now, I grabbed it a aweek ago, I just need to scan them into digital format - i will try to do that this week. Third, I reckon a "New Zealand Wattlebird template" at the bottom of this article would be ace! I will email you some ideas for its design now. Thanks for asking this question and catalysing action on my part! Kotare (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I just went through and did some google (scholaring) and there was apparently also a species of Huia feather mite.. there is also some stuff about fruit dispersal ecology in NZ forests and frugivorous birds including Huia that could be added. I'll try to get onto both of these soon. Cheers, Kotare (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that Huia mite stuff is interesting. Re map: I thot u were going to give Casliber the info to make one from? Why do you need help from anyone else? Kahuroa (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, yeah I know but I want to send him a digital image of nz to make the map out of... I'm going to draw one up by hand and the idea is that he can reproduce it digitally using his skills in this area. I'm not that tech saavy so I don't know where I can just grab a good, free outline map of the North Island. And the ones for Kea and NZ parrots are good and have good colours already there.. I tell you what, I'll draw up the map of huia distribution and email it to Cas' this week.. because finding the NI map file will probably be the easy bit. I drew up a template design prototype today and will email it to Cas also. Do you know how to make templates Kahuroa? maybe you could help.. like I said I'm not too tech saavy beyong basic wikimarkup so I don't know how to make them. Sorry I never got back to you about HANZAB either.. I'm confused also, I will try to get up to the Vic library to see if I can work it out. Kotare (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So how do you think I did the maps for C. australis? Tell us what you need - N Island outline? I'll see what I can do. What u mean by templates Kahuroa (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What about this map? File:New Zealand North Island outline.png. Kahuroa (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally forgot about that, sorry - your C. australis map is freakin' ace!! And yes that map you just posted the link to is ideal! thanks a lot. do you have photoshop kahuroa? maybe you can help me with these deforestation photos in the horowhenua I scanned today.. they need to be moved around and cut up a bit.. this is what I mean by template (sorry, yeah it's an ambiguous term especially here):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:BirdsKotare (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Actually Casliber has great colour sense - see the map for Grey Currawong. Very nice. Yeah a template like that is no problem, let's find a nice one and copy it - that one is a tad old school?? Photoshop yep. 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks - now what to colour where....Kotare, the yellow stripey bit is - you want just that or both sides? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

silly Cas! haha.I gave very clear instructions to you in my first email to you yesterday with the deforestation photos, I have copied them from that and pasted them below; the email itself was quite long and you sound very busy so perhaps you just skimmed over it.."Now, I printed off a map from google maps of the central north island today and I will draw the line that marks the northern limit of huia occurence at the time of european settlement on this map tonight and then I will email it through to you. What I was thinking for this map is that we have a north island completely green in two different shades - light green for the northern part to denote the pre human settlement range of the Huia and dark green south of the line (which I will be sending you detail of tonight so you know where to mark it) to deonte where the bird was found by the 1840's. I had another couple of ideas too.. we could have a small black cross in the Tararuas to mark where the last confirmed sighting was and 2 small black circles to mark where other, later sightings in the 20th century occurred - so there would be one circle behind eastbourne on the eastern side of Wellington harbour and one circle in Urewera national park in the central west part of the island."Thanks again for your help, Kotare (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Although now that I think about it that highlighter hatching on just one side must have been confusing and I should have explained what to do on the actual map, so I was actually being a bit silly, haha - my bad. The Gray Currawong map looks great! I should also point out that the WHOLE north island will be green.. Huia were found in both lowland and montane forests after all. so all you have to do is draw the line in and seprate the island into two seperate blocks of different shades of green. Cheers, Kotare (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha - which side you want darker and which lighter? Will do tonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool man! North side light (pre-human settlement distribution), south side dark (1840 distribution). what do you think about the cross and circles idea? Kotare (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

great idea. I need a little bit of uninterrupted time. Hopefully tonight. Long story...RL has a habit of intruding ... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Update: okay, I did it. Let me know if you guys want me to tweak it. Pretty straightforward so let me know. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Like it, awesome. Only thing I can think of is what about the offshore islands on the east coast off Auckland - Great Barrier, Little Barrier, Waiheke etc, I think they should be coloured the same as the nearby mainland. Because it's pretty much a given they would share the same avifauna?? Some of the small peninsulas along the Northland coasts seem to have missed out on the colour too. Kahuroa (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, got 'em (I think). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it. Is the file name correct? I have rename/move powers on Commons, btw. Kahuroa (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, could do with a rename. I am happy to let Kotare figure out what it shloud be called. I am haivng trouble finding 'striped' filler on GIMP to change darker green to stripey green :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Good work on the expansion. I've done a few minor edits, but haven't gone through the whole article as yet. I thought I'd pass a few thoughts on:

• The lead might be too short in its current form for FA class. It does mention the bill shape three times, where once should be enough.
• You might want to have a look at Template:Convert.
• For articles with references that are frequently referred to, I would use Template:Sfn, so that it's easier for interested parties to go to the source. I'm not sure whether it's a requirement for FA class, but it's most useful nonetheless. I appreciate that it would be a major effort to implement, though.

I hope this helps. (note that I don't watchlist this, so if you wish to reply, please do so on my talk page) Schwede66 18:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Template

Kotare, what do you have in mind for the template - something to go at the bottom of the article? And what do you want in it, NZ wattlebirds only, or what. Kahuroa (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

yeah, a blue template at the bottom of the article.I've drawn up a sketch design of a possible template with links to 6 articles.. (2 being kokako and saddleback) but it's easier if you just see the sketch rather than me explain it at great length.. can you get Cas to forward it to you via email? or where do I go to email you on your userpage.. I forget how to find the "email this user" button..Kotare (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's in the toolbox on the left side of the user page. Can be hidden, you have to click on toolbox if it is. Kahuroa (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have made a template - currently at template:Callaeidae - add and subtract or reorganize at leisure. Forgot the little exticnt cross-thingy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. BTW I will be out of town over the next coupla weeks so can't do much Kahuroa (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Have a good trip! I'll see if I can't help the article along a bit more before you get back :)Kotare (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill dimorphism not so special after all?

Anything in this article we need to incorporate? Sexual dimorphism in bird bills: commoner than we'd thought Kahuroa (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Although sexual dimorphism in bill shape is found in other birds such as the riflebirds and sicklebills and in other wood excavating birds including some species of Woodpecker,[1] it was most pronounced in the Huia.[5. Not too much we need to change, it already is acknowledged that the Huia was not unique in exhibiting this feature but that it was in the degree to which it did. There's a lot of good stuff in that article though, so there's plenty we can add; the osteology stuff at the end in particular and also the case studies of other examples of birds with sexual dimorphism of beak morphology. Really useful article..How'd you find it Kahuroa? Kotare (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I follow that blog actually ... but that's an old entry I hadn't come across. I was searching for a nicer copy of Buller's Huia pair illustration (the one on commons has crap contrast) and that brought me to the article. Just thought a nicer version might be usable for the article. U like the range map??? Kahuroa (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

IT IS TIME (*said in Arnie accent*)

Well, I have spent quite a lot of time over the past 5 days working on this article; you will see I have grown the thing by a total of 8 kb in that period. Here is a rough summary of what has changed;

- Information in the "Extinction" section and the lead is now consistent

- Lead has been fixed up so the Huia's beak isn't named with extensive repitition

- Biology part has been rearranged, now "Social Behaviour and Reproduction" is a seperate section and everything in the article is under a sub-heading

- The material in the "Feeding and Ecology" has been expanded with info. on Huia frugivory and ecology and a photo of Kahikatea fruit has been added.

- Information on the Huia feather mite has been added

- HANZAB has been combed for any remaining info not yet added and the inline citations have been fixed up so that they are for each page in the Huia section now, as opposed to 40 odd citations for a single source with no page numbers

- Information on "Huia" as a name for places, companies and people has been added

- Information on differing regional rates of decline throughout the NI has been added

- More wikilinks added

We have now, as of this month, under the direction of moi, got those 3 new visual elements up too; the distribution map, the deforestation photos and the "Callaeidae" template. I feel very happy with what has been built here and I feel that, at last, the time has come to chuck this one in as a FAC.Kotare (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)