Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vermilion flycatcher/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) 30 June 2020 [1].

Vermilion flycatcher[edit]

Nominator(s): CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vermilion flycatcher is a bright red little bird found through much of the Americas. True to their name, they are aerial insectivores, and are quite nimble in flight. They are unique among the generally drab flycatchers due to their vibrant coloration. This is the second in my series of "cute birds I see outside my office window that should have FA's". I took it to GA status earlier this year, and it recently received a GOCE copy-edit, hope you folks enjoy it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Here are my initial comments.

  • Most flycatchers are quite drab, but the vermilion flycatcher is a striking exception. - I think this can be rephrased, because it sounds weird to mention "most flycatchers" first before this specific flycatcher species.
Rephrased
  • Their song is a pit pit pit pidddrrrreedrr, which is variable and important in establishing a territory. They prefer riparian habitats and semi-open environments. They are aerial insectivores, catching their insect-based diet while flying. Their several months–long molt begins in summer. - four consecutive sentences beginning with "they" or a variant thereof. I suggest switching it up a bit. Same with They are monogamous but will engage in extra-pair copulation. They also practice intra-specific brood parasitism, where females lay their eggs in the nest of another vermilion flycatcher..
I have reworded the lead, hopefully that should do the trick.
  • including the now extinct San Cristóbal flycatcher - technically the adjectival form (and less confusing wording) is "now-extinct", but since this is not tagged as being any variant of English, this can be ignored.
I'll throw a lil dash in there anyway, for flavor :)
  • The overall population numbers in the millions—leading it to be considered a species of least concern by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. - is it possible to say this in active voice? e.g. "The overall population numbers in the millions, and so the International Union for the Conservation of Nature considers it a species of least concern".
Done, though I used "thus" instead of "and so"

Taxonomy and systematics

  • The first description of the vermilion flycatcher was in 1839 (some sources say 1838) by John Gould, who created the current genus Pyrocephalus. - OK, so which sources say 1838 and which say 1839? This makes it sound like 1838 is the wrong date. Is there a source for 1839 being the definite right date? Otherwise say "1838 or 1839"
Changed to "1838 or 1839"
  • Prior to the study it was considered a monotypic genus, but most taxonomists (including the International Ornithologists' Union), - last comma not needed
Done
  • now believe that up to three of the vermilion flycatcher subspecies merit species status (Darwin's, San Cristóbal, and scarlet flycatcher). - this sentence has 2 parentheticals which break up the flow.
@Epicgenius: I have changed to a colon, is that better? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's good. epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • Males are not easily mistaken for other species, but the drab females may be confused with the Say's phoebe.[4] - generally one-sentence paragraphs should be combined with others, unless there is a specific reason.
Combined
  • Worn feathers are replaced by molting. Molting takes between 62 and 79 days and begins in July—lasting until September - first, is it possible to combine the two sentences? It sounds strange to have the same word repeat consecutively: "molting. Molting". Second, I am unsure if the dash is necessary, or can merely be replaced by other punctuation like a comma.
Done
  • described as a pt-pt-pre-ee-een - would it be useful to say who described this?
Done
  • for example, populations in Arizona and Texas only sing from late February through July - would this be geographically related?
I see your point, but I would prefer to keep it in the song section, as I think it more related.

Distribution and habitat

  • as a breeding range they prefer cottonwood or mesquite tree canopies, although Fremont cottonwoods were not favored - "as a breeding range" also sounds somewhat strange.
Done
  • Goodding's willow was preferred as a nesting site where found. - using passive voice also sounds strange.
Done

More later. epicgenius (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I've taken care of what you have raised rn, did you have other feedback? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have pushed this to the top of my list of on-wiki priorities. epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While active, about 90% of their day is spent perching, and only 4–11% is spent chasing prey. - is the upper limit 11%? Because 90+11=more than 100
The 4-11% are the error bars, the 90% is a rough average, thus the "about". I'm not sure how you suggest I change this?
  • 39% of laid eggs were successfully raised to fledglings. - I recommend not starting the sentence with a numeral.
Was removed as part of Jens' comments
  • In the "In culture" section, the first paragraph seems to be talking about in captivity. Is it normal to describe the effects of captivity in an "in culture" section?
I have renamed the section "relationship with humans" to better reflect.

@CaptainEek: I guess that's all. epicgenius (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I've tackled those points too. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my comments have been addressed. epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

Doing a read - placeholder. Will add some comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the subject not a proper noun? It's lower case in lede.
Most birds names are not proper nouns, no.
  • The vermilion flycatcher is a striking... I dislike this type of linking, as the term "vermilion flycatcher" and "vermilion" are for different things. Perhaps explain what the association between the flycatcher and vermilion is.
Lead changed
  • The vermilion flycatcher is a striking exception among the generally drab tyrant flycatchers. - probably needs a reword to avoid repetition.
Changed "tyrant flycatcher" to Tyrannidae, the scientific family name
  • I think the bit about how they look should be at the bottom of the lede. The part about how they have been founded and how they live is better lede material.
Starting with ID is pretty standard for bird FA's, and is the most useful thing for most birders, but I can try to move it around if you feel that necessary.
@Lee Vilenski: I believe I have tackled your comments, but let me know if I need to do more :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to do a review of the prose outside of the lede, but I think it's pretty good. Happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media review[edit]

Unfortunatly I don't have time to review much text now, but here's a media review. All photos have appropriate sourcing and licencing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The map's sourcing seems a bit unclear[2], was the map taken directly from the Cornell website, or just based on an image there? If the former, I don't think it's free. Contacting the uploader, Cephas, may resolve this, but they only seem to have a Commons userpage. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the Cornell website and it is based on the image there, not taken directly. Link, though it requires a subscription.
In that case, it should be made clearer on the file page, by for example writing self made or own work under source, and specifying it is based on the Cornell map. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Galleries should be avoided if they are only decorative, as seems to be the case here. Any relevant images that show something not illustrated in the article body already (such as the bird in flight) should be incorporated in relevant sections in the text.
I have moved the relevant gallery images into the text and removed the gallery
Looks good, I wonder if that museum specimen is really needed? Now it kind of messes up the references by creating white space on the right. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I had thought about putting it in the taxonomy section, as a left justified image? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking a bit empty there, and it was caught not that long after it was described it seems. Note some people are against images left of the taxobox because the text is "squeezed", but I have done that a lot myself, I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use an unfree external link for sound recordings, but we do have some free ones that could be used directly in the article:[3][4]
I see someone has added one in, thought the quality is abysmal. I'm going to keep the link to XenoCanto for additional recording. I tried to find another free recording on Xeno Canto, but they're all CC 4.0 non commercial licensed :( So close...
  • Here's a free photo of nestlings[5] that might be useful.
Omg, they're so cute! I have uploaded and added the photo.
Yep, I just saw you clarified the origins of the map, so should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sainsf[edit]

Your second FAC :) Will add all my comments in a few days. Also, I will be listing this review in my WikiCup submissions. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 13:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to work a bit on the citations for consistency that a source review evaluates. For instance consistency in the way the authors are named (like Butler, Luke K.; Butler, L. K.; L. K. Butler or Luke K. Butler), the date formats for journal articles (year or month+year), 10 or 13 digit ISBNs and formatting checks (for instance we need italics for scientific name in ref 4). Just some advice before an actual source review is done.
  • Ref 32 doesn't take one to the bird's entry on the Red List. Should you not be using Template:Cite iucn? Or is something else the convention for bird articles?
I'd never seen cite iucn before, and now I have. Useful indeed. Fixed.
  • The Wikispecies link is for another species (okay read the Taxonomy section now, it is an old subspecies but there is a separate species entry for P. obscurus)
Entry changed
  • As aerial insectivores, they catch their insect-based diet while flying Is "insect" not a bit repetitive? How about "prey"?
Done
  • Vermilion flycatchers also practice...nest of another vermilion flycatcher You can say another "individual" or something to avoid repeating the long name in the same line
Thank you, I was looking for a better way to say that
  • Link taxonomy and genus in lead
Done
  • led to the creation of several new species Is "creation" be the right word? I think "identification" would be more appropriate
Done
Done
  • on the second voyage of HMS Beagle Beagle should be in italics, and it would be great to mention the year
Done
  • Link mottling
  • It prefers pine savanna habitats Link savanna here only, it is linked later
Done
  • Didn't know there is a link for crown in Description. It should be linked in the lead too
Done
  • The molt is fairly slow compared to other species to other species of the genus or the family or something else?
Clarified
  • In "Fremont Cottonwoods", why the capital C?
Done
  • Link Brazilian Amazon
Done
  • The section is named distribution and habitat but actually the first para is about habitat and the next on distribution. Maybe swap the words in the heading or the paras?
Done
  • in the nest of another vermilion flycatcher You may wish to reword it to "another individual" for reasons I mentioned in a similar point above, not so necessary here though
Done
  • The flycatcher is a frequent victim of brood parasitism Brood parasitism is a duplink
Done
  • Eggs are ovate For someone unsure what "ovate" means, a Google search says egg-like shape, or oval in outline. Doesn't ovate sound redundant, maybe the difficult goes away if we say "oval"?
I also thought about this. "Oval" will not work because it does not cover the asymmetry, which is only indicated by "ovate". I guess the problem is that the eggs are close to the average of bird eggs, but that there is no term for this average shape. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to keep it as ovate, as the more scientifically accurate term. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.6 g (0.056 oz) A tip, if converted measurements turn out too precise like this one, you can set the |sigfig= parameter in the template to 3 to round it off to 0.06 oz.
Done
  • while the female builds an additional nest I am curious, why another nest?
My sources didn't elaborate? I dunno, its a fairly common bird tactic? Instead of reusing a nest, they'll just move onto another. [6] Here's a study about multiple nests in another species, but I don't think its really something I can cite here.
@Sainsf:Well I'll be, there actually IS a paper about this, thanks to Jim who found it. [7] I have included some info from it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome :) Sainsf (t · c) 19:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • varied from 59–80% → "from 59 to 80%"
Done
  • The vermilion flycatcher is a favorite with birders. They are not generally kept in aviculture The bird is mentioned in singular in the first line and in plural in the second. Both need to be either singular or plural for consistency (else "they" technically implies birders!)
Done, good catch, don't want to walk into an aviary full of just birders!
  • You may link "metabolized"
Done
  • publishes a journal named for the vermilion flycatcher Unless the name is just "Vermilion flycatcher" we can mention it by name here
The name is eponymous
  • estimated as ranging between When are these estimates of?
Clarified
  • even though its overall numbers are declining I think this would look better if combined with the next line where you start giving examples of this, this line is already long enough with details and you mention "least concern" followed by this contradictory fact all of a sudden in a single line.
Done
  • You may link Habitat destruction and riparian as you have in the lead. Also link vulnerable species
Done
  • The audio file in the infobox says "Call of Vermilion Flycatcher", should the name be in caps like that?
Done

That's all from me. Thanks for this beautiful and fascinating read :) Sainsf (t · c) 05:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: I believe I've taken care of all your points, let me know if something further is needed :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. All my comments have been addressed and I believe the prose meets FA standards. "Ovate" might still be a problem but I don't see it as a major issue. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 18:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Looking alright....

  • In the Taxonomy and systematics section, you mention The type species was designated as Pyrocephalus rubinus by the English zoologist George Robert Gray in 1840 and then A 2016 molecular study by Carmi et al. changed the taxonomy of the species, splitting off several new species and renaming the original bird as Pyrocephalus obscurus - if renaming, does that mean it another binomial name was used before 2016?
No, but I've clarified the wording a bit. In essence: There was one species up until 2016, called P. rubinus. In 2016 they made the Scarlet flycatcher P. rubinus, and thus the vermilion needed a new name, so it became P. obscurus.
  • The way this is written - Before the study it was considered a monotypic genus, but most taxonomists (including the International Ornithologists' Union) now believe that up to three of the vermilion flycatcher subspecies merit species status - suggests the species are not accepted, but according to the IOC they are. soneeds a rethink on how worded - ehter past tense or another verb
I reworked to hopefully clarify
  • The In culture section would be better if you singularised the species as it is a bit jarring goting from "It.." to "they.."
Done

Otherwise looking on track....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for the review! Hopefully I've tackled the issues you've raised :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Jim[edit]

Very comprehensive, just a couple of things before I support.

  • Females do not usually sing—I know this is what the source says, but does the female ever sing? I checked on Cornell and several books, and I couldn't find anything about female song at all.
I looked through my sources, and I didn't find anything beyond the one mention, but I don't think we can say the female never sings. It seems understudied, likely because it is so rare, and because males are easier to ID and listen to.
  • The Galpagos sp appears to be plagued by various parasites, including a parasitic fly. Does VF have any internal or external parasites such as worms, ticks or fleas. Any diseases? Some nest parasites at least are mentioned here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that source @Jimfbleak:, it came in super duper handy! I have added a paragraph from it. I also found some sourcing about disease and added a paragraph. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • Nice bird. My main concern is the "Taxonomy and Systematics" section which is difficult to follow and seems to lack information important for a complete understanding; see comments below.
  • intra-specific brood parasitism – "intra-specific" may be to technical for the lead (especially without a link), maybe avoid?
Changed to "within species" for a less scientific and more understandable term
  • The Pyrocephalus are most closely related to the Sayornis – usually genus names are without article and in singular (the genus Pyrocephalus).
Done
  • They likely share a common ancestor that belonged in the genus Contopus or Xenotriccus and later diversified. – this would mean one of these two genera is paraphyletic?
Yes, but the research isn't sure which one so I'm not going to speculate
  • Carmi et al. – "et al." is a technical word that can be easily avoided (instead, "and colleagues" is an option).
I've actually opted to just not mention the author, I think just saying "2016 study" should do the trick
  • I would place general information about the subspecies (e.g., how many) a bit earlier. As it is now, earlier sentences about the subspecies are difficult to comprehend without this background. For example, when reading The South American subspecies diverged about 0.56 mya, and the North American subspecies diverged at 0.25 mya, I thought that there is a single North American subspecies and a single South American one, and was confused later on.
I have moved the text on evolution into the subspecies section
  • The South American subspecies diverged about 0.56 mya, and the North American subspecies diverged at 0.25 mya. – A bit unclear; from what did they diverge? Thinking about it I guess it means that the ancestor population of the South American birds split into separate subspecies 0.56 mya, and the North American one at 0.25 mya? Maybe also add the date of split between the North and South American lines?
I have adjusted the wording slightly, it is more accurate to say that the South American subspecies had coalesced (emerged) by .56, and that the North American diverged from the South by .25
  • The identification was based on specimens brought back by Charles Darwin on the second voyage of HMS Beagle – here I really would like to know where these specimens were collected.
Done, it was from James Island
  • in 1838 or 1839 – why, is the publication date unknown?
Checking my sources, they seem to agree on 1839
  • The first description of the vermilion flycatcher was in 1838 or 1839 by John Gould, who created the current genus Pyrocephalus. – "first description" implies a Species description; if so what was the species?
I have expanded the section a bit with the note that he called it Pyrocephalus obscurus originally
  • The type species – of the genus Pyrocephalus, not of the Vermilion! Bit confusing, these sentences read as if this would be the article Pyrocephalus. Maybe rewrite from the species perspective.
Done
  • splitting off several new species and renaming the original bird as Pyrocephalus obscurus. – Why the new name? Wouldn't the old one have priority?
Zoologists work in unusual ways, I couldn't find an explanation for the convoluted naming
But all zoologists need to follow the code where these things are exactly regulated. But the taxonomic subtleties are of minor importance in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but most taxonomists (including the International Ornithologists' Union) now believe that up to three of the vermilion flycatcher subspecies merit species status – "most" and "up to" don't fit together imo. How many species are recognised by the IOU?
Clarified
  • which can lead to confusion with the scarlet flycatcher. – Why? Need the scientific name for the latter as well to make this clear.
Done
  • The molt is fairly slow compared to other species – species of birds in general or compared to other flycatchers?
Clarified
  • This reflects a tendency to overwinter in areas where the temperature does not go below −1 °C – But this cannot be the sole explanation, since the population in the Amazon basin, where temperatures are not below -1 °C, are not present all year.
Though I found some discussion of how their migration evolved and helped them spread, I could not find anything more discussing the reason. As with so many topics in science, it seems to be an area of future research. Birds migrate for a ton of different reasons.
  • This allows the male to outsource the energy-intensive process of egg-laying – This reads as if the male would lay eggs.
Clarified
  • Yearly nesting success in a Texas study varied from 59–80% – what is considered a nesting success? Not rising to fledglings, as those success rates are lower as stated later in the article.
Clarified, the numbers were actually for the same thing but poorly worded

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: I believe I have tackled the issues you raised, thanks for the review! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

CaptainEek, are you still interested in pursuing this nom? If so we need your responses to all the outstanding comments above ASAP or I'll have to archive this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Yes Ian, I sure am. It kinda fell off my radar, but I have chugged along on it all morning. I should have everyone's comments done within the next day :) Thanks for the ping. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further coord note[edit]

@Epicgenius: are you satisfied? And do we have a source review? CaptainEek, am I right this is your second FAC? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I think there are still three issues that should be resolved first before I officially support. epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth This is my second FAC. I am still waiting on a source review, though I have asked for one on the FAC talk page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • fn 2: Recommended citation is Ellison, K., B. O. Wolf, and S. L. Jones (2020). Vermilion Flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.verfly.01
@Hawkeye7: How do you suggest I do that with the cite journal template...? Or do you think another template would be better? Or are you saying I should do it manually? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • fn 10: is the only one in this format.
Done
  • fn 11: reformat isbn as 978-0-520-27493-8 to match the other fns
Done
  • fn 20: add ISSN (0004-8038)
Done
  • fn 21: add ISSN (0010-5422)
Done
  • fn 25: add ISSN (0101-8175)
Done
  • fn 26: add ISSN (0043-5643)
Done
  • fn 28: add ISSN (0777-6241)
Done
  • All sources are of high quality
  • Spotchecks performed on fn 2, 4, 5, 28
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Hawkeye! I believe I've tackled all of the issues except for the first, which could use a reply. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected it. Support on sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy coords[edit]

Ealdgyth, @Ian Rose: I have secured a source review, image review, and a number of prose reviews, what do you folks think? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:24, 27 June 2020 (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/Vermilion_flycatcher/archive1&oldid=965378611"