Talk:Giant nuthatch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Giant nuthatch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "upperparts" is not explained in linked article. Linkt to upperparts instead?
Done
  • She looks for pine stands, – "it"?
oof, Done.
  • The giant nuthatch has a long beak and a long tail for a nuthatch. – I suggest "For a nuthatch, it has a long beak and tail"
Done
  • nominal – link?
Done
  • S. m. ligea has a slender bill – "has a more slender bill"?
Done
  • but these last two species – "last two" is superfluous?
Done removing it
  • and Simon Harrap therefore proposed bringing the Eurasian nuthatch (S. europaea) and its species complex of Palearctic birds into the mix. – What does this mean? Does he propose that the giant is closer to S. europaea than to these tropical forms?
Reworded, actually there were no proposal according to the source. My mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4455:1A9:E100:D491:33CD:C6AF:2C51 (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The giant nuthatch is then related to the white-breasted nuthatch (S. carolinensis), whereas the latter species was previously related, by morphological characters, to the Przevalski's nuthatch (S. przewalskii), which, however, appears to be completely basal in the genus Sitta, and the white-cheeked nuthatch (S. leucopis), not present in the study but probably a sister species to the Przevalski's nuthatch.[11] – Too long and difficult to read, I would split this sentence up. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • When molting in adults, the feathers of the tertials and greater coverts are also tinged brown in juveniles, and the bill is slightly shorter and blunter. – Does not make sense to me, what has the bill in juveniles to do with molting in adults?
Removed moulting, info appears below of it already.
  • Adults go through a full moult after breeding season – When is breading season? Not stated anywhere.
Added "early May"
  • reminiscent of the song, in addition to the sound, of – I don't understand this; what is the difference between sound and song?
Done removing duplication
  • printing roaring beats – is that formulation possible? "Printing" means something else?
Reworded
  • It usually flies short distances, straight up, – can't follow: it flies short distances, and straight up what? Or "it flies short distances straight up", so it usually does not fly down? I'm at a loss.
Reworded
  • there were three young people, – three young people discovered the nest, or what does it mean?
Reworded
  • and the nest was located three meters above the ground, in the hole of an oak tree, 8 m high – Three meters or eight meters?? This is contradictory.
Reworded
  • Benguet Pine (Pinus kesiya) – link at first mention in main text, and only at first mention, and no need to repeat the scientific name every time all over again.
Done removing and linking on first mention at the "breeding" section
  • it is found amidst oak and chestnut forests, among which mature large Benguet Pine (Pinus kesiya) stations are common at the top of ridges. – I don't understand. Pine stations?
oopsie, removed
  • southern Sichuan and Guizhou (in Xingyi, in particular). – Can you link those, and the following places?
Done
  • The giant nuthatch has been seen in live animal markets before, but it is likely a marginal threat. – What is a threat, I assume poaching?
Replaced into "poaching"
  • in Yunnan, where there are probably between 800 and 2,000 mature individuals, or 1,000 to 2,499 adults for the total population, which represents 1,500 to 3,800 birds in all. – Where do these numbers relate to?
Reworded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4455:1A9:E100:51DF:E210:3461:FD67 (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a common misunderstanding. – What is a misunderstanding? (I would suggest to just remove this)
Done
  • ON HOLD: Very interesting topic, but we have a problem with Good Article criterium 1: Well written. The article is hard to understand, the prose is not clear in many places. See the above for details. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack I think I've addressed all your concerns now. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:D491:33CD:C6AF:2C51 (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the following formulations still do not make sense:

  • but its comparisons appear to be with the Palearctic Eurasian nuthatch group, rather than these brightly colored, predominantly tropical species. – maybe "but it is more similar to the Palearctic Eurasian nuthatch group than to these brightly colored, predominantly tropical species", if this is what is meant?
Ok, this is actually better.
  • The white-cheeked nuthatch (S. leucopis), not present in the study but probably a sister species to the Przevalski's nuthatch. – This is not a complete sentence.
Reworded again
  • It was located in a hollow oak about 8 m tall, with the nest entrance about 3 m off the ground and a 25 cm trunk diameter. – group height and diameter of the tree? As it, is might be confusing. Maybe: "It was located in a hollow oak about 8 m tall and 25 cm thick, …"?
Reworded
  • but it is likely a marginal poaching. – "but poaching is likely a marginal threat"?
Reworded
  • As a result, the global population is divided into 1,000–2,499 mature individuals, or 1,500–3,800 individuals in total. – Why is this "a result"? I suggest: "The global population comprises 1,500–3,800 individuals in total, of which 1,000–2,499 individuals are mature". --
Reworded

Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack I've finished it, thanks for recommending what to change. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:65EF:266C:7C2D:AC69 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The white-cheeked nuthatch (S. leucopis), which was not present in the study but is most likely a sister species to the Przevalski's nuthatch. – This is still an incomplete sentence, and I don't know what it wants to say. What do we loose if we remove it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the largest of the nuthatches – can you link "nuthatches"? Do you mean the family or the genus here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Ive linked it, but both genus and family of the nuthatches redirected to the same article. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:65EF:266C:7C2D:AC69 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, its monotypic!
  • ", among the oak-chestnut groves" – what does this mean? I don't understand.
Reworded
  • The giant nuthatch is placed in Sitta (Mesositta) – Is this a mistake? It does not seem to be in Mesositta.
Removed, appears to be translation error now.
  • Did you translate from the French Wikipedia? This should be indicated. In any case, there seem to be serious translation mistakes left, for example "but it is more similar to the Palearctic Eurasian nuthatch group than to these brightly colored, predominantly tropical species", which reads very differently in the French original. These mistakes are very problematic. Could you please go over the complete article again, double-checking the translation with [1] to see if your article says the same things as the original? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jens Lallensack I've actually translated most of it on French. I've checked everything and did some changes, although this part reads differently because at French article it said "Simon Harrap proposed", but its name was never mentioned on that part. At the book, it reads like this: "Relationships: Sibley & Montroe (1990) place it between Blue and Beautiful nuthatches, but its affinities seem to be with the Palearctic Eurasian Nuthatch group, rather than with these brightly coloured, predominantly tropical species." Any suggestion on this? 2001:4455:1A9:E100:D491:33CD:C6AF:2C51 (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simon Harrap is the author of the book, which is your source! The French article is correct I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I asked someone to take a look at the book. Done rewording it properly, you can check whether there are grammar issues only.
  • "eye-stripe" is the correct term, not "eyebrow lines" or "eye-lines". In general, you need to double-check the sources, or our Birdgloss, to see which terms are correct. Not simply translate technical terms.
Checked the source and reworded
  • The Harrap 1996 link in the references is not working, because you don't have the "Bibliography" section that the French article has.
Revamped ref style.
  • please incorporate fixes from FunkMonks review here as well, e.g. Burma -> Myanmar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • The description section needs more links, especially to the bird gloss. All technical terms should be linked at first mention (e.g., eyestripe, tertiaries, mandible, mantle, and so on).
Done
  • Could you please check if these sentences are supported by the book sources (they seem suspicious to me). See how the original English source formulates it.
    • cap is tinged with cream – not sure if "cap" is the correct word, it doesn't appear in the bird glossary.
Checked the source and reworded
    • very black eye line with faint blue highlights – not sure what "highlights" means
Checked the source and reworded
    • the feathers of the tertiaries and large coverts – the tertiaries and coverts are feathers, so shouldn't this be "the tertiaries and large coverts"?
Checked the source and reworded
    • S. m. ligea has a more slender bill laterally and is about 4 mm shorter than – The bird is 4 mm shorter? Really? Or could it be the bill? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the source and reworded
Jens Lallensack I did your concerns. Also, I apologize if I burn your time. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:AD8D:34EA:1D98:6F6A (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Thanks for tenaciously bringing this article up to shape! I think it meets the GA standards now. Congrats. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I finally finished it. Thank you for your time and for introducing the deep translator, huge help for me when translating other content in the future! 2001:4455:1A9:E100:8F7:B4E2:14D5:58BA (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! I would recommend, for your next nomination, that you add a note saying that you translated the article. There is the "note=" parameter in the "GA nominee" template on the talk page for this. It is important that the reviewer knows that it is a translation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giant_nuthatch&oldid=1222973799"