Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grey jay/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2017 [1].

Grey jay[edit]

Nominator(s): Ivanvector (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a funny Canadian bird that had a vigorous GA nomination and has had quite a few eyes look over it. I reckon it's within striking distance of FA-hood...and there are two of us who'll address issues. have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I never managed to catch up with this when we went to a wedding in Vancouver... A few comments follow. As you know, I'll be away for a few days, so no rush to respond Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • To avoid confusion, I'd give Bonaparte's first names and precede with "French ornithologist"
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First para of taxonomy too many relatives/related
removed some Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we now link continents and countries
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • is a resident—is resident seems more natural to me, but feel free to ignore
I must say I prefer the 'a' and using it as a noun...will wait for other comments on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • median of 0.0 km for males—isn't it easier to say that males don't move?
I could if it was a mean but not a median... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could give the average life span if known
added Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to give binomials for species you should do it for all that are mentioned, not just some. Personally I think it adds nothing since the species are wikilinked anyway and it's just clutter
I like them as they break up the sea of bluelinks in a species list, so have gone all in rather than all out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grey jays are "scatterhoarders", caching thousands of food items during the summer for use the following winter. — This sentence has five refs for 16 words, seems excessive. Elsewhere, there are other sentences with four refs, are those all needed??
Many of the refs used here are studies on specific aspects of the jays' scatterhoarding behaviour; none seem to discuss the behaviour itself in any great detail. It seems to be taken for granted as though this is common knowledge. I found that one of the studies refers to a 1965 Douglas Dow study which appears to be one of the first to actually study the grey jay's caching and hoarding behaviour. I've pared down the references (which are all cited elsewhere) and added a citation to the Dow study directly. I'll have to get back to checking out the other occurrences of citation overkill. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with replies and comments from other reviewers don't seem deal-breaking, so supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

I enjoyed reading this article. I've added links to the IOC website and BHL.

Taxonomy

  • "A 2012 genetic study revealed ..." I find this sentence difficult to read. Perhaps lose "(the earliest offshoot)" and perhaps use quotes for the labels attached to each clade when first mentioned: "boreal", "transcascade", "Colarado" and "Pacific".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the relationship between the four phylogenetic clades and the nine subspecies? van Els et al mention that they sampled 6 ssp. (p.457).
annoyingly they don't say which subspecies corresponded with what clade. I could guess, but I might be wrong Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating - but I have to agree we shouldn't be guessing. I wonder why van Els didn't list the ssp more clearly. I notice that HBW rather sensibly has 6 ssp rather than 9 - it omits scanfordi, nigricapillus and griseus. (Just for amusement I'm now going to guess) Fig 1 in van Els et al has a map showing the 4 clades and includes pictures of the three morphotypes. The 'Taiga' clade extends all along the top of the map - and thus must include the ssp canadensis, pacificus, sanfordi and nigricapillus. The 'Pacific' clade on the West Coast corresponds to obscurus (with lighter breast), while the 'Rocky Mts' clade corresponds to capitalis (with light head). I'm giving up there. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ssp authorities (as well as species and genera) Peters is the standard source and is available online from BHL. For P. c. pacificus you cite the IOC instead of Peters which would be: Mayr, Ernst; Greenway, James C. Jr, eds. (1962). Check-list of birds of the world, Volume 15. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology. p. 236.
am uneasy - is it still regarded as the standard even though it dates to 1962? IOC is much more current and represents consensus (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was about to write the same thing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/References suggests that IOC is the standard. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK - stick with IOC. Obviously with all the reorganization of genera (and even families) as a result of DNA sequencing, much of the content on genera and sp vs ssp is out of date. But the Check-list.. (often referred to as Peters after the first editor) is still an important source of historical information. It is frequently cited when new names are required for splits (using synonyms), for resurrected genera and for the type species of genera. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • What colour are the legs and feet?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mating

  • "Approximately 65% of grey jay trios included" - Presumably a result of some study. The number is likely to vary over the large range. Perhaps "In a study conducted ... found that..." or similar.
added the study for accuracy/context Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • allofeeding - is this technical word needed?
I added "food sharing" in parentheses - I think highlighting the term is good as it is a specific behaviour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that when this came up before, I started the article allofeeding with the intention of wikilinking it from here, though I only really got as far as a dictionary definition before something shiny must have caught my attention. There is a fair bit of scientific work on this topic, though, such that I think a decent article could be built. Off-topic for this review, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until then, parents will drive the other birds away from the nest." - suggest you delete this sentence as repeated in Fledging section
The problem then is that the sentences following on depend on that line to make sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nesting

  • "Grey jay nests were found in black spruce..." - tense?
presented Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cup-shaped nests[24] were constructed..." - tense?
presented Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24 is seems a strange choice of source for the shape of the nest. How big is the nest structure? Is the nest lined? With what?
updated Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cocoons of the forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria) filled" - tense?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the female fed by the male while she is incubating? (HBW has male feeds female usually off the nest)
That seems counterintuitive to me: if the female fed off the nest the eggs would freeze. Rutter has that the male feeds the female on the nest, but if there's a contradictory source I'd like to look into it. I'm not sure what you mean by HBW, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would trust Rutter. HBW is the Handbook of Birds of the World which was published as 16 volumes but is now available online (subscription needed). The article on the grey jay is here. The breeding section includes: "Male selects nest-site; nest a bulky outer platform (14–16 x 10–15 cm) of twigs well insulated with cocoons placed in exterior interstices, with thick inner cup (7·8 x 5·6 cm) of shredded bark, lichens, hair and feathers, placed 1·7–15 m above ground close to trunk of coniferous tree (especially spruce or fir). Clutch 1–5 eggs, usually 3–4; incubation by female alone (may occur at temperatures as low as -30°C), period 18·5 days; chicks brooded by female, fed by both sexes; male feeds female, usually off the nest, often with previously stored food;..." Rereading this I realise that I've misread the HBW text - "usually off the nest" applies once the eggs have hatched. Aa77zz (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clutch size is 2 to 5 eggs." Need the article: "The clutch size..."
added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How large and what colour are the eggs?
added colour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fledging

  • "is a median of 0.0 km for males,..." ? I think this is unnecessary obscure. Perhaps - "the most common behaviour for a young male is to stay within his natal territory." or similar.
As pointed out above, changing this wouldn't be accurate because the statistic is a median, not a mean. Young males do commonly leave the natal territory. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding

  • "temporally homogeneous throughout the passerine breeding season" What does this mean?
can't find it - pretty general statement if it means what I think it means, so deleted it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lescher and Lescher" - Why are Mr and Mrs Lescher notable? And if grey jays eat small mammals as mentioned in first line then these are likely to be alive.
agreed and incorporated elsewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Barnard was the first to witness" Who is Barnard and why is he notable?
a biologist but in this case not notable and reworked bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caching

  • "Grey jays are "scatterhoarders",..." Why are 5 cites needed for this unremarkable sentence?
fixed above Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and favours the retention of young and a kin-selected social organization." Why?
that came from the Roberts source - I have removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural significance

  • "According to Maccarone and Montevecchi" - unless they are notable we probably don't need to know their names.
agreed and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, Rutter claims" - who is Rutter? Why do we need his name?
we don't - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These behaviours" - I would use the singular.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • "This article incorporates public domain material from the United States Department of Agriculture ..." Is this still true?
I have just compared them and found it to be so. Much of the USDA material is repetitive and can be reworded easily. Will prioritise this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 28 - the dissertation by Roberts is not a suitable source. This is unpublished and thus cannot be used to verify the information in the article. see WP:RS.
Roberts source now removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may return with more comments. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes. I've supported above. Good work. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley[edit]

This is just a quick a review, I will do a more in-depth reading of the article later. Anyways, here is what I have to say:

  • Inconsistent use of Oxford comma.
I think they are all present now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... perhaps check the very first sentence in the article? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did another quick read-through and fixed a few, I think we've got them all now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the nesting section, you should switch the numbers in, "Clutch size is 2 to 5 eggs," to letters (as is 2 to two and 5 to five).
that would creat a consistency issue as it would look odd against the average clutch sizes in the next sentence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in that case don't do it. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the taxonomy section, last sentence second paragraph, same thing as above.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be wrong, but in the fledging section it says, "Food is a dark brown, viscous paste containing primarily arthropods," and I feel like there should be a comma between dark and brown just so that it reads better.
err, no (?) - "dark brown" is a colour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it just reads oddly, and I think it would be the same. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being "dark brown" is different from being both "dark" and "brown", although it's probably not much of a difference. I think we shouldn't change it without a good reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Ok, I guess it is better to sacrifice the reliability for the slight annoyance in reading it. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to put the binomial name after organism, do it for every organism. I found one occurrence in the first sentence of the third paragraph of the caching section.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just some quick comments, a (probably) better reading of this article will come later. Good luck! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now some more comments:

  • In "Grey jays adapt to human activity in their territories and are known to approach humans for food, inspiring a list of colloquial names including lumberjack, camp robber, and venison-hawk," the names should have quotes around them (WP:WORDSASWORDS).
see, my take on that is the wordasword is in italics and the meaning is in quotes, hence these should all be in italics....but that causes confusion with the scientific name, which is also in italics..sigh.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the taxonomy section, in the sentence, "However, it and the other members of its genus are not closely related to other birds known as jays, they are instead close to the genus Cyanopica, which contains the Azure-winged magpie," "azure-winged magpie" should not be capitalized.
good catch. lowercased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the taxonomy section, for the description of Perisoreus canadensis canadensis, could you add something about it being the nominate subspecies?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Perisoreus c. canadensis is accidental in northeastern Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)," could you possibly just have it P. c. canadensis? It is in that format at the start of the description and in other descriptions of subspecies, in the body, no less.
good catch. abbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should probably link "nuchal" in the sentence "It has a wholly whitish head with a pale nuchal band, and overall more ashy grey plumage."
I made it plainer English by changing "nuchal" to "on the back of the neck" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps change "It is also generally larger than subspecies canadensis," to "It is also generally larger than the nominate subspecies, canadensis."
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "P. c. arcus was the name give to populations in the Rainbow Mountains area, and headwaters of the Dean and Bella Coola Rivers of the central Coast Ranges, British Columbia," reads oddly.
tweaked. better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: A bit, although it might be better to say, "P. c. arcus was the name given to populations that were found in both the Rainbow Mountains area and headwaters of the Dean and Bella Coola Rivers of the central Coast Ranges, British Columbia."
I checked this out during the GA review. The problem is that there are at least three distinct areas known as "Rainbow Mountains" in British Columbia (see dab), and the mention of the two rivers seems to act as disambiguation rather than referring to a separate location. It's not a "both" situation, it's a description of one area. I wasn't able to figure out which of the locations should be wikilinked so I left it unlinked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the description section, "The distinctive head colouring is mostly white with a dark grey or black back and hood, with a short black beak and dark eyes," reads weirdly.
reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many occurrences of "northern" in the sentence "It is also a native resident in northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, northern Michigan, northern New York, and northern New England."
I agree, but am not sure how we can rephrase it to lose the duplicate words and keep the meaning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Yeah, looks good. Might be good to add "the states of" after the of in the sentence, but that's your call. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think you're right. Fixed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you have to do it, but it would probably be better to specify and link to the last ice age in the sentence "Fossil evidence indicates the grey jay was found as far south as Tennessee during the last ice age."
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should probably specify the genus of the lodgepole pine in the sentence "The vast majority of grey jays live where there is a strong presence of black spruce (Picea mariana), white spruce (P. glauca), Engelmann spruce (P. engelmanni), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), or lodgepole pine (P. contorta)."
I thought the order made it clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "An exception to this general picture may be the well-marked subspecies P. c. obscurus, once given separate specific status as the 'Oregon jay'," "'Oregon jay'" should probably be switched to ""Oregon jay"" (see words as words again).
I removed that segment Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar fail, "Monogamous, pairs remain together for life, though birds will pair up with new partner following the loss of theirs."
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the mating section, "however, this is only allowed by the parents during the postfledgling period.[23][25][26] Until then, parents will drive the other birds away from the nest," "postfledgling" should probably be changed to "post-fledgling."
hyphenated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it is the first reference to a study by Strickland, probably change "In Strickland's study" in the sentence "In Strickland's study, two-thirds of dominant juveniles were male," to "In a study by Dan Strickland."
Fixed, although there is a note above about mentioning the names of researchers in the article which I'm still thinking about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Grey jays wrench, twist, and tug food apart, unlike other birds known as jays (such as the blue jay, Cyanocitta cristata) which grasp and hammer their food," there should be a comma after the parenthesis.
fixed Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps change "Scatterhoarding discourages pilferage by competitors. Cache thievery increases with increased cache density," to "Scatterhoarding discourages pilferage by competitors, which increases with cache density," or "Scatterhoarding discourages pilferage by competitors, which increases with increased cache density." It would just make it look less choppy.
I feel that your recommended changes here make the combined sentence vague as to what is increasing with increased cache density. I reworded in a slightly different way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Grey jay remains were found in the nest sites of fisher (Martes pennanti) and American marten (Martes americana)," implies that the fisher is called the fisher marten.
I tried reversing this but "American marten () and fisher ()" seems just as awkward. I think it's not as incorrect to read M. pennanti as "fisher marten" as it is to read it as "American fisher", so best left as is I think. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that you would remove the comma after imitating in the sentence "Grey jays warn each other of predators by whistling alarm notes, screaming, chattering, or imitating, and/or mobbing predators," but I could be wrong.
I had to read that a couple of times - you're right. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am, again, pretty sure that you would put quotation marks around the different names in the partial sentence "This behaviour has inspired a number of nicknames for the grey jay, including lumberjack, meat-bird, venison-hawk, moose-bird, and gorby."
Keeping in mind Cas Liber's response to this point above, I think that leaving the words plain is the clearest way to do this, however the MOS directs otherwise. The important thing is to be consistent within the article, and it's currently not: there's at least one instance of quoted "whisky jack", the Algonquian and Tlingit names are italicized as are the Scots and Irish words (I guess they're all MOS:FOREIGNITALIC), and the comma lists have no formatting. I think it would be most compliant for the English nicknames to all be in quotes, then, since we are discussing the words themselves and it would be a confusing mess if we italicized them. @Casliber: what do you think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of demonstration I went ahead and changed the cultural significance section. I don't think it's confusing, or at least no more confusing than it was or than it would be any other way. Will wait for consensus before doing any more. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector and Casliber: I think that it looks good that way, just to make sure, foreign names/words to italics and other names to quotes. Also, it should be done for two reasons, one, the fact that italics would cause confusion, and if you accept that reason, then the other one is that it has to be consistent. Just so everybody is on the same page here, the first paragraph of words as words goes as follows, "When italics could cause confusion, quotation marks instead may be used to distinguish words as words. Use one style or the other in a given context; do not apply both styles at once to the same terms, or switch back and forth between the styles in the same material." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a guideline question: when I did this I italicized the wikilink to Wisakedjak but another editor undid the italics. Should this non-English title be italicized? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I don't think so, as it says, "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to." This would, of course, be overruled by WORDSASWORDS, in which case you would make it italics. So, think about it like this, if you were to replace that name with an "English" name, would you invoke WORDSASWORDS? I wouldn't. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean and I agree. It's just another inconsistency in our guidelines, I think, with foreign-language titles & proper names. For example, laissez-faire is a French term used in English so we normally italicize it. I guess Wisakedjak is partly anglicized so no italics? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly add the IUCN classification to the lead, and if not, at least expand the abbreviation of it in the first sentence of the conservation section. (see MOS:ACRO)
Done. I don't really like including IUCN status in the lede for "least concern" species because I feel like it doesn't add much to understanding of the species (not like threatened and endangered species) but it does seem to be common practice for FA bird articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the articles I have been reviewing recently, this is a long one. I can't imagine how long it took to write the article... Anyways, good luck! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Really good job, it is pretty hard to improve an article of that size, but you guys did amazingly well. All of my nitpicks were addressed, so I am ready to support. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes: Have I missed image and source reviews for this? If not, they can be requested in the usual place. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review from Laser brain[edit]

  • All images are appropriately licensed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 41, publisher? Also, this site lists Rutter 1969 as a source and doubles up with fn 22 which is also Rutter... are we just citing the same source twice?
At first I added the publishing organization, but then on investigating your note about Rutter I think you're right, we're doubling up on the same source by proxy. The Friends of Algonquin Park source isn't used anywhere else and it's already listed under external links, so I just removed it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Grey_jay/archive1&oldid=1136097524"