Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red wattlebird/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2017 [1].

Red wattlebird[edit]

Nominator(s): Aa77zz (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a critter I commonly find in my garden. Aa77zz and I have buffed it quite a bit and it got a good going-over at GAN so I reckon it is at or nearly at FA standard. I promise to address issues promptly. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

All looks good, just a couple of nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • sedentary (present year-round) — I don't like the parenthesis, perhaps year-round resident or permanent resident?
  • A mainly sedentary resident — sedentary seems superfluous
  • up to 1900 m above sea level —imperial conversion
  • Your conversions to inches are inconsistent, some with fractions, others, such as the eggs, with decimals
  • often parasitized —make clear or link to brood parasite
all done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from MeegsC[edit]

Lead
  • Is the "bright yellow patch towards the tail" on the dorsal or ventral side? It's not clear from the sentence.
Ventral - fixed. Aa77zz (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground. This reads a bit awkwardly. Do you mean that it spends most of the time in trees, but forages on the ground? Because that's how it reads.
Aah, I tried to rectify like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*No information on breeding or status and threats in the lead? I'd expect to see at least a few sentences about each!

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more coming soon!

ummm, @MeegsC:...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry - I'm in Guyana at the moment, with only intermittent veeeeeeeery sloooooooooow connectivity. Will check ASAP. MeegsC (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi MeegsC, my feeling is that this has probably had sufficient commentary now but if you think you can return to it I could leave it open another day or two... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is looking good; I'm happy to support it. MeegsC (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • I can't remember which script throws these out, and I am not certain how to fix this particular error, but I see four of these: "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list" in your refs.
Not sure what the problem is here - but I've switch all author= to last=, first=. Does this fix it? Aa77zz (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All except for the one I just fixed. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the logic behind placing Jobling, James A. (2010) and Beruldsen, Gordon (2003) in the References section, but all other books in the Cited texts section?
Good point, I'm looking into this. Aa77zz (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the three books into Sources. I'm in two minds about this. For books which are only cited once there are advantages in keeping the full reference in the text. Aa77zz (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you get a copy edit? This sentence is a bit clumsy; moreover, it seems to forget the frequency of Hawking (birds): "A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See above, I changed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley[edit]

First, in the lead, "distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck" reads a bit odd. Second (I know I'm just adding on to the dogpiling on at this point), the sentence, "A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground." reads weirdly. Also, before that, why did you link to just Western Australia and not all the other places? In the taxonomy section, why did you say, "The red wattlebird was first described as the wattled bee-eater by the Irish surgeon and naturalist John White in his Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales, which was published in 1790."? The original common name is in italics, which doesn't make much sense to me. For the description section and on, you seem to have inconsistency in the usage of to and the em dash and whether to use fractions or decimals. The final nitpick I have is the fact that you should probably make parasites a separate section, "Predators and Parasites". It may not be long enough to make into a separate section though, it would be great if somebody else could give their take on that. Good luck! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other Australian states now linked. Aa77zz (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck" seems fine to me. Cas - are you happy with this? Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine grammatically but readers may find it odd. It could just be changed to "distinctive pinkish-red wattles on either side of the neck". It reads a lot better for me at least... RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I was scanning it and putting the 'on' in it mentally when it wasn't there. Added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • wattled bee-eater - italics removed but see MOS:ITAL "Words as words". Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for linking me to that, I will read it. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is tricky as italics delineate the scientific names from common names, yet if we use words-as-words then we italicize the common names when they are set out as such. There's no real right answer on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding parasites, I am in two minds as we have some brood parasites mentioned in the breeding section, but it strikes me as a bit odd to group cuckoos with birdlice and protozoa. But you're the second person to raise it so will do in a sec done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all imperial units are in fractions and decimal units in decimals Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized something else—oxford commas are inconsistent. Otherwise, it looks good. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
just adding now I think I got 'em all...(I should say I don't really like Oxford commas but they are very useful if one needs to add a ref after one..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good. My nitpicks were all addressed. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review sources are appropriate and consistently formatted. I checked refs 12, 19, 31 and 56, and subscription ref 23. Content is supported by sources, no close paraphrasing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Jim Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did two of the reviews stall? I'll start a review later today, if they don't continue. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "The taxonomic descriptions in White's book are believed to have been written by the English naturalist George Shaw." Which I guess is the reason why this article credits Shaw, but I see the IUCN has White as the author. So seems there is some disagreement on how to handle this? What do most sources do? Also, why isn't Latham credited with the name if he coined it? FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responsible for this section:
  • Salomonsen 1967 (ie Peters) has (White 1790) see here at the bottom of page
  • HBW alive has (Shaw 1790) see here
  • IOC has (Shaw 1790) see here
  • Zoonomen has (Shaw 1790) here with the note "Usually attributed to White, but see Nelson EC. 1998. Archives of Nat. Hist. 25(2): 149-211. making the case that White is not the author of any of the taxa in this work." I've cited Nelson but (this is embarrassing) I cannot access the actual article to confirm the comment on the Zoonomen website (Zoonomen is by Alan P. Peterson).
  • My understanding was that for an author to be credited with describing a species he/she has to provide a description and a binomial name but for the red wattlebird this doesn't appear to be the case. (This is perhaps OR on my part) Unlike other birds in White's book, a specific name is not provided for the red wattlebird only "Wattled Bee-eater or Merops, Female" . See page 240 in White.
  • Latham certainly used the binomial name Merops carunculatus - see here at top of page and doesn't credit White.
  • Salomonsen 1967 claims the White's book was published "before August" and Latham's (December). see here and the next page
How should I handle this? - Aa77zz (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More
I find it very surprising that White/Shaw are listed as the authority but the specific epithet is due to Latham. I've searched White's book but cannot find the specific name. Our article on John Latham explains that Latham wasn't given credit for the birds he described in his A General Synopsis of Birds as he didn't provide binomial names. In Latham's description of the red wattlebird in his Index ornithologicus he cites "Phill Bot Bay t. p. 164" which is The voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay published in 1789 - see Phillip's description and picture of the Wattled Bee-Eater here. Phillip doesn't provide a binomial name. Aa77zz (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, seems there are some secondary sources that discuss the issue? So at least the situation could be explained? I think some readers would be puzzled when they read the seemingly contradictory sequence of taxonomic events. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus among published sources is that the author is Shaw - Australian government and IOC (above) are two most important authorities in this I think. I am placing a line in the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't access the Nelson article that explains this. Will see if I can get via interlibrary loan or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try the resource request page?[2] I think it would be good with some explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looked in the Nelson material today - it mentions that Shaw wrote all the descriptions for White. Also, Salamonsen points out that White/Shaw was published before Latham, in which case whoever published first gets the Authority, even if they used the name that the other person coined. This is why Salamonsen highlights the months published. As far as authorship (White vs Shaw), we mention that Shaw did the writing and is credited with the Authority, so is anything more needed?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NB: A famous case is Richard Anthony Salisbury and Robert Brown in 1809... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onomatopoeic could be explained.
I added "(sounding like the calls they make)" - strikes me as a tad wordy but is more accessible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No cladogram? Any suggestion for when the species split?
A large molecular phylogenetic study has just been published - see Marki et al 2017. For the wattlebirds (Anthochaera) the relationships are well resolved and agree with earlier publications. I've drawn a cladogram that I've inserted into the wattlebird article, I can add it here. The spiny-cheeked honeyeater (Acanthagenys rufogularis) in its own genus is a sister group to the wattlebirds but beyond that the relationships are murky. Marki et al. wrote: "We recovered a number of strongly supported clades within the Meliphagidae, however their interrelationships remain largely unsolved." Looking at the scale at the bottom of Fig 4, it appears that there was a sudden radiation about 10 million years ago. - Aa77zz (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think just saying "coverts" is too jargony, saying covert feathers the first time at least would be better.
I unabbreviated two of three Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like you explain nape, lores could be explained too.
Added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wattle is kind of hard to see on the photos used, compared to say, this one[3]. Maybe there is a photo somewhere that could be added where this namesake feature is more visible?
Agree on the wattles...but the bird is in a funny posture in the picture. Will try and digest all the photos and come up with something have added the image. There are others but they have more obvious focus or exposure issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is even the weird pose itself that makes the wattles so clear? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sclerophyll forest and dieback could be linked, I at least had to click to know what it was.
sclerophyll is really hard to explain succinctly - "sorta but not aways dry-adapted forest that is periodically burnt by bushfires" and dieback is commonly used in discussions in Australia. But I un-easter egged the link anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "height of 5.9 ± 5.8 m" Conversion?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tongue is described in detail, but what colour is it?
no source I have details a colour,sadly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also failed to find a suitable source (the tongue is yellow - see here and here) Aa77zz (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro says "At around 35 cm (14 in) in length". Why not give the 33-37 range in the article body?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is one of the largest species of honeyeater" Only stated in intro.
tweaked and added to body now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cup-shaped nest" Article body says "bowl".
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your review and your support. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:38, 25 January 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/Red_wattlebird/archive1&oldid=1144369058"