Talk:Birds of the Amazon

Why is there no information about the different species of bird in the amazon. This article is garbage18:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.192.66 (talk)

Everything looks in order... Pmedward (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Jwhurst

After reading your page, I thought that your overall body of work was a great addition to Wikipedia. I feel that you cover 3 very important features of the rainforest and that you also describe these 3 features in a good amount of detail. The opening paragraph serves as a good introduction, by generally introducing your topics that will be later discussed. However, there area few grammatical errors in this introduction that could take the reader's focus away from the idea of your writing. The rest of your page flows well with good organization of ideas. I do think that you could combine the endangered section with habitat destruction by combining the ideas like logging and explaining how logging can specifically harm these birds' environments.

In the Diet section I was wondering why you chose to explain the diets of the birds you did. I see that they are vastly different from one another and that may be your reason. The table listing several species and their diets is very informative and is a great tool for quick information. Again, I think that combining the endangered section with the rest of the Habitat destruction section. By combining this information the reader can more easily understand how these destructive habits can endanger specific types of birds. The sources and the number of sources included in your page verify and give strength to the information that you do have. The grammatical errors continue throughout your page which could distract the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhurst (talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

peer review by Ccogar

Firstly, I did find several spelling and grammatical errors throughout the course of this article. Nothing too major, just be sure to spell check and re-read to make sure that sentences are grammatically correct. Other than those, the page is very well written. The information is extensive and impressively comprehensive. I would suggest perhaps adding another photo at the beginning of your page to make it more aesthetically pleasing. A "further readings" section after your references would also be helpful for readers who may have questions about birds of the Amazon that are not answered in your article. The page could ultimately use more linking ("Amazon" should be linked, for example, as well as "food chain," "competition," ...) to other relevant articles. And although the page is already well-researched, I feel that there is still more that could be added to each section. The sections could be further divided into more sub-sections to be fully comprehensive. The page does seem to comply with Wikipedia's style guidelines, and the in-line citations are excellent. Overall, I think that you are at a good place at this point in the project. Great job so far - just work on adding more information where necessary and then figure out what will make the article most enjoyable and informative for readers. Ccogar (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Erock58 peer review: Looking through your page I only noticed a few grammatical problems. Overall You have done a good job on elaborating and adding insightful information. It seems that you have found some credible sources with usable information. I also noticed some strengths in the construction and outline of the page. One thing that you could possibly change is the beginning of the paragraph in the section titled, "DIET". Consider taking out the first clause of your first sentence. This is a very strong page, I like how you added a graph, it makes the page look very professional. This page contains factual information relative photos and credible sources I don't know if there is much more you can do to improve on this page.--Erock58 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

""Well-written"": This being my first introduction to your page, I am impressed by the overall aesthetics and, my first thought was that you were improving on an existing article. Reading closely, I discovered some grammatical errors beginning in the Introduction and continuing through the sections. With a little editing, you can enhance your credibility and produce a more professional entry. Providing additional links to some of the terms such as, ecosystems, all of the mammals you mention and symbiosis, would also be helpful to readers. I thoroughly enjoyed your article and increased my knowledge of birds and learned additional information on how deforestation is harming the many species of birds inhabiting the Amazon. Thank you!

Comprehensive: This is a very detailed article with a wealth of information. I don’t know if it should be narrowed a bit and would like to see what others say in this regard. I enjoyed your graphics and would love to see more pictures of some of the birds you mention, but that may be out of your scope.

Neutral: I do not see any bias, particularly in the writing about deforestation. That could have been a problem, but you seem to handle that well. Adding a reference to the “rules not being followed” in your section on Road Clearings and Logging would improve on accuracy.

Formatted: It might be more interesting to readers to learn about the habitant before the diet. You could switch the locations, unless you want to make diet your focus. Your pie chart on deforestation was correctly taken from Wikipedia Commons, which shows your sensitivity to copyright laws. Could you label the picture of the Belize Harpia, so readers can instantly know what your featured bird is called? Mfontaine (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are my comments that follow the structure we talked about in class:

Well-written: The information presented thus far is valuable and pertinent information. More specifically, the factual information (including specific facts and bits of information) supplements the larger points made throughout the page. Aside from the fact that the page is in the early stages of development, many ideas can be linked together so that the page flows better. However, I think that you should continue doing more of the same with the specific details/facts (examples) you have already presented.

Comprehensive: Once again, your group has done a great job with providing a good balance between supplemental information and hard facts (numbers/quotes/direct facts from sources). In addition, the text within the subheadings properly addresses the necessary topic. Nevertheless, the subheadings could be further expanded to incorporate additional examples that are all relative to birds in the amazon.

Well-researched: Considering the volume of facts offered in the page, I think you are on the right track with meeting this requirement. It appears that most of the facts (as presented on the page right now) are 'big picture' pieces of information that are certainly great to include and pertinent to your page. However, many of the facts and ideas mentioned in the subheadings appear to be already mentioned or referred to in the initial paragraph. Instead of taking this information out, I would suggest to further expand your research into the areas you mentioned. For example, under the 'diet' subheading, you mention that the diet for the birds in the Amazon differs between the species due to several different variables. Maybe you can pick a few birds that interest you or your group and try to find what they eat? And, if you are able to find additional information, why are they limited to that type of food? Perhaps research into questions such as these will allow you to link different ideas together. For example, some of the species could be endangered due to food shortages which could be caused by other birds or animals, the weather, etc. Of course, there are several strategies and routes that you can take when continuing your research, but this was just one quick suggestion that could help going forward. All in all, the information presented on the page right now is valuable information that keeps the reader engaged.

Ideas for future research:

• the E-Research Tools section on the UNC Library Website has several databases that might be of use to your group. Two subjects that seem to be the most relevant to me are 'ecology' and 'environmental studies.' There are numerous databases under these subjects. I tried doing a search in the BIOSIS Previews database (under environmental studies) and typed in the following; bird* amazon* rainforest*. Although only 8 articles were found under this search, they all seemed to be relevant in some way (particularly with the impact of climate change). Again, this might not be the best route going forward but it might be worth doing a few searches using the databases under the E-Research Tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeelFan2445 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral: I do not foresee this being issue due to the topic your group has chosen. Maybe trying to include examples from several different birds to provide thorough analysis would be one suggestion. This would add to the depth of the article which could provide additional levels of headings and subheadings within the page.

Formatted appropriately: The headings and subheadings are laid out appropriately and are in alignment with the table of contents at the top of the page. Although all pages are formatted differently, many seem to have some sort of introductory text leading into the table of contents. This could be fixed rather easily by moving the first paragraph to the top. From a visual standpoint, I would suggest trying to add some tables or buckets of information with bullets. This would allow the reader to skim through the page if they did not have time to read the entire article. For instance, under the 'diet' heading, a table could be displayed listing a certain number of birds, what they eat, and one interesting fact. Not only does this allow for better organization of information, but allows your page to flow more smoothly opposed to having straight text.

Overall comments/suggestions: I really like the topic your group has chosen for this assignment and should provide for a valuable wikipedia page due to the sheer amount of information available. I noticed that there is already a page created that is titled, 'Amazon Rainforest,' which appears to offer general information (including information about different species). Under the 'biodiversity' section of that page, there is some information that is similar and relevant to your page that might helpful to your group when trying to expand your research. One last suggestion is to try and keep all of the subheadings (i.e. diet, diversity, habitat, etc) in alignment with the general topic of birds in the Amazon Rainforest. In addition, try to expand more within these subheadings opposed to offering general bits of information that may have been addressed in the layout of the general topic. Once again, great job so far with the general layout and selection of subheadings to support the overall theme. --HeelFan2445 (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Johnstc Johnstc (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the article with birds.

Well written - The overall draft is well written but seems to be missing a lot of detailed information that needs to be added. I do not feel like I am learning much from the page right now. I think the sections you have a great, now its just time to expand.

Comprehensive- I think its a great start and the direct facts are good. Now it is time to push further within the subject headings to help the reader understand more. Right now I feel like it is not fully knowledgeable. More examples and locations of bird would be good to add.

Well-researched - I think you have covered a lot of the facts but there are still a lot missing. I know there is a ton of information on this topic and you are going to have to pick and choose what to use. My thoughts would be to stay away from smaller bird populations and focus on the major birds located in each area. What makes them such an important part of the environment? I think it is important to capture your reader because if they see a subtitle they are not interested in they will just skip it. We do not want this to happen and I think you can avoid this by expanding each section.

Formatted Appropriately - It think the page looks very professional and on a good start. To me this page is still under construction though. It does not seem complete and fully researched. I would gather more sources from e aricles that supply photos and locations to help educate the Wikipedia family.

Overall, great start to an awesome topic!! You guys can find so much stuff for this and I think it is just a start. I would really encourage you to extend EACH section with at least one to two paragraphs with also statics of birds, lifestyle, and locations. Good luck!

Johnstc (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dion Guy User:Tarheel57

This is a well written article that is easy to understand. It has a good outline. You made good categories. I believe that this article showed a lot of accurate information because it seems like you have good sources. I think your page looks up to par. I think you just need to add more criteria to your article to make it more exciting. Try adding pictures to your site to make it look more appealing. This page is off to a nice start I just think it needs more details in the categories and more time spent on it. You should look up some information in National Geographic to help with your content. Overall, nice job.

User:Tarheel57

Peer review

Well-written- Information is easy to follow and very organized. Gives a good overview, sub-categories are good, however could be more detailed. Definitely a good foundation, more information will make this a good page.

Comprehensive- Intro/overview is great, sub-headings should be expanded with more information and examples of birds in the amazon

Well-researched- the information seems to be well researched, however i believe more information can definitely be added. Focus on the most interesting examples of birds in order to capture the readers focus.

Appearance- The page looks good, well organized and does not appear intimidating with an overflow of information like so many pages are. Brechbue (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review:

This is a solid wiki page. A few tweeks here and there and you'll be set.

Writing: I like the writing style; its factual, which is what I expect from a wiki page. I would comb through it again though, because I spotted a few grammatical errors and typos, like the spelling of the word "threatened" in the first paragraph.

Comprehensiveness: Birds of the amazon sounds like a pretty broad topic, so I was surprised to see the relatively short length of the page. If I type in birds of the amazon in wiki, I probably want to know what birds live in the amazon. This question isn't thoroughly answered. I'm not telling you to catalog all 1300 species of birds, but I would like to see a section devoted to species.

Research: What's been presented has clearly been well-researched and well-referenced. But like I said, maybe tell me more species.

Neutrality: Good and neutral.

Format: Good formatting for a wiki page. A few more pictures of birds would add a little something. Mmbero122 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Ktmills

Well-written: I am really impressed by the progress that has already been made on this page. I thought the information presented was all relevant and useful. I liked how you added specific details such as the parrot, however you might consider separating out the specifics from the general information as you are talking about such a broad topic. I like the use of specifics however how they are used is going to be important. For example, in the opening sentence when you discuss the single parrot species it leaves the reader a bit confused as the topic of the page. Since the topic is about birds of the amazon in general you might want to move this information somewhere else. The use of the information on this specific parrot species should be found in a different segment of the page away from the introductory paragraph and will hopefully be further strengthened by specific information on other species.

Comprehensive: Your group did a great job of organizing the information into different relevant subgroups which is imperative for comprehension. I think the group did a great job of identifying the key subgroups that are apart of the more broad topic and the subgroups just need to be more developed, but is a great start.

Well-researched: I think the group is off to a great start with research. You have gone to a lot of different resources and have annotated them well. I think the biggest task at hand is researching further into the subject both generally and specifically to different species. As you continue to research, even more subgroups will surface however it will become more difficult to organize. The sources used are all relevant and will continue to be useful however the more sources you encounter the more developed your page will become.

Neutral: I didn't sense any form of bias on the page! Good Work!

Formatted appropriated: I was surprised by how well formatted the page was already. I liked the use of the key or table of contents that broke down the subgroups and how well you annotated and cited your facts! Awesome work. The progress made on the formatting of the page is definitely a strength so far of your group's project.

Ktmills (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Kchubb28,

The first thing I noticed is that this is a very large category, Birds of the Amazon Rainforest. This is going to be difficult to tackle (See Wikipedia page for Birds). The good news is that you don’t have to provide ALL of the information about birds; you just have to figure out what is essentially different about Birds of the Amazon Rainforest. The first section seems a little bit jumbled… the information is sporadic. You need to focus on giving an overview of what is important about these birds and let the reader delve into the details as they wish. Diversity might be something important to mention as part of the overview, as well as habitat destruction and endangered species.

Consider profiling some key (important or signature) Amazon rainforest birds. You may want to provide a table or some type that lists the birds, their diet, and whether or not they are endangered. Also, this is a wonderful chance to use pictures to show the beauty of these birds. Remember that you aren’t trying to replicate the Birds page, you need to provide information specific to these types of birds. For this reason, the information “Birds interact with other animals in their community through the food chain, competition…” is not really necessary. For the “Diet” heading, consider dividing the types of foods into categories like mentioned above. You don’t need to say that the “diet differs among species” because that is apparent, remember don’t provide extraneous information. The narrative could be improved but you have a good amount of sources. Since endangerment and habitat destruction is so important, you may want to consult environmental databases or blogs for further information (remember to keep it professional), aside from just the factual information about the birds.

Earthtoclay (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well written – it’s well written I found this interesting I liked it

Comprehensive – this part looks great, I can’t really think of anything you could be missing, you could maybe add behaviors of the different birds if you wanted to

Well researched – you call the eagle a raptor in the diet section for harpy eagle, and it that a harpy eagle at the bottom of the page? If it is maybe you could put a little caption out by the side of it. in the diet section you say that their diets are vast. Why did you pick it if you can’t give sufficient information, and why did you pick just those birds? Do those specific ones give the right amount of information to describe this page?

Neutral – it neutral

Formatted appropriate – the format looks good to me

tisham152.23.225.145 (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Drsulliv

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

The prose in this article is certainly professional and sufficiently/efficiently informative. However there were a few grammatical issues, and one spot I think a couple letter were left out of a word. Under "Habitat Destruction", it says, "Two to four million ha are being cleared each year...". I would have corrected it myself but I'm not sure if you meant to type "habitats" or if it was supposed to some other word completely. But that's an easy fix. As far as the engaging-ness of the prose, I wasn't very captivated or intrigued by the prose itself, but that may simply be because the topic doesn't lend itself to much creativity. I think the most important thing about the prose for a page like this is that it needs to seem professional and completely factual, which it does...so well done.

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context [and what might be missing?]

When I read the subject of the article to be "Birds of the Amazon" I anticipated an article all about all the different families of species of birds found in the Amazon, the importance of these birds, maybe a little bit about the most exotic/unique birds, maybe a representitive bird from each family and then info about that bird, and plenty of picture of all these different birds. Instead, I read a little bit about the Amazonian birds in general, then a bit about a couple species in particular, then the rest of the page was about threats to the amazon forest in general. I questioned whether the title of the article should be changed to something more about the threats of the amazon forest or if there was just too much about the threats of the forest and not enough about the actual birds of the amazon. You already seem like you've compiled enough sources to fix the article so that it goes more in the direction of either birds or deforestation so it shouldn't be too bad to add information from either side. I just feel like the article should generally reflect the title a little bit more.

Well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; [are there a variety of sources/viewpoints?]

One thing I definitely noted when reading this article was the amount of legitimate sources you collected. I think one of the strongest things about this page is how many in-line citations there are. It makes the page seem so much more reliable and verifiable. I did notice however that a lot of the sources were used multiple times. For instance, sources 17-19 are the same, so instead of citing "Deforestation in the Amazon" 3 seperate times, you could just cite it once and then refer back to that same citation as many times as you want so that in the list of references "Deforestation in the Amazon" would only appear as citation 17. I also noticed that citation 15 didn't seem to link out successfully. But other than those few things, this article seems to very well researched.

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

The only reason I could see this article as being taken as a biased article is because of the inclusion of all the talk about deforestation when the topic should be more focused on the birds themselves. It makes it seem like you have an alterior motive in writing about these birds, which is to educate everyone about the bad effects of deforestation. I know that you didn't actually have this alterior motive in mind but I can easily see how someone might make the mistake in believing you purposefully put an environmental slant in this article. But again, if the issue of whether this article is to be more about the birds or more about the deforestation is resolved then everything will be fine.

Formatted appropriately: it follows Wikipedia style guidelines.

I was very impressed by the professional-looking and efficient layout of this article. Other than the multiple usages of the same citation, I think the layout and style follows the wikipedia style guidlines perfectly. Job very well done.

I think overall this page is going to be one of the most commonly visited and most useful pages of any of the groups in the class. I'm very impressed by the topic and by the amount of research already put into this. Again, if the subject matter can reflect the title more accurately and especially more consistently I think this page will be exceedingly professionally and exceptionally well done. I look forward to reading the final product! Drsulliv (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birds of the Amazon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110506205835/http://www.worldmigratorybirdday.org:80/2011/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=28 to http://www.worldmigratorybirdday.org/2011/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=28

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

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) 02:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)