Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White-rumped swallow/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) 21:37, 27 February 2017 [1].

White-rumped swallow[edit]

Nominator(s): RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another one about a swallow from the Tachycineta genus. It is found in central South America. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sabine Sunbird[edit]

  • The second paragraph of the intro is book-ended by references to the supraloral stripe - why not combine the two sentences? The stripe is a weird way to start the paragraph and you could say It has a white supraloral streak above its eye, which can be used to differentiate it from the similar Chilean swallow.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the species have a lower altitudinal limit? If not, perhaps mention it ranges from sea-level to 1000 m.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nest prospecting is a behaviour recorded in both breeding and non-breeding individuals. Does this mean that birds prospect for nests while actually nesting? If so it could be made a touch clearer.
I added a sentence after the one mentioned to clarify. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • transition from pinkish-white to pure white. Does this mean they vary in colour or they change colour after laying?
Clarified, they change color after laying. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made few edits for language and will have another look soon. Looks good overall. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabine's Sunbird: FYI, I'm done. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the HBW the species was sometimes placed in the genus Iridoprocne, worth mentioning?
I added a mention of that. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, raving read the article, that the section on nest-prospecting isn't quite right. I'll try and re-jig it later.
Ok! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this close... Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabine's Sunbird: Is everything good with the article now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I've been struggling with the nest- searching behaviour paragraph. I'm not convinced that the article conveys accurately the journal article's conclusions, but the journal article itself is a little unsure (in my opinion) about what it is trying to say. Its saturday here so I'll have another go at reading the journal article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "This swallow was first formally described" You should give the full name of the subject at the first mention in the article body. Preferably also in the start of every new section.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species name is derived from Ancient Greek. Tachycineta is from takhukinetos, "moving quickly", and the specific leucorrhoa" You translate both the genus and species name, so the first part should be changed.
Changed to "binomial name." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a subspecies of the Chilean swallow" Link everything again first time it is mentioned outside the intro.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has since been moved to the genus Tachycineta." By who?
Cannot find, may need more experienced editor to do so. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did it split? Any cladogram?
I don't really know, a more experienced editor is needed here. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) I will not include a cladogram, see Jimfbleak's comments. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never seen a cladogram create problems myself (unless there is serious disagreement in the literature), shouldn't hurt, but yeah, it isn't necessarily required. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This swallow is monotypic." I'd say species instead of swallow, otherwise it's too vague. Maybe even specify that it does not have subspecies, most readers probably don't know what monotypic means.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The culture sections seems fairly pointless, I'd cut it.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could invert the alignment of the images under breeding and diet; depicted subjects should face the text, and then you won't get the subject header clutter you now have with the lowest image.
Good now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems fairly short, is there no more info to squeeze out of the sources, and have you checked Google Scholar?
Not too much more, I only found one more source. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These flocks frequently consist of both the white-rumped swallow and other species of swallows." Like which?
Not specified RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supraloral", " lores", "ear-coverts" Could be explained and linked.
Linked all three, explained lores and supraloral. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These features fade with age." Which features? Both the black and white?
Not specified, but it seems to refer to the tips. I also made it more accurate, "fade" to "erode." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was once considered a subspecies of it" Already mentioned in a more appropriate section than description.
Removed RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No predators are mentioned in the "Predators and parasites" section.
Removed RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Status" is too vague, could be renamed Conservation status.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is quite a bit of info in the intro that is not mentioned in the article body, which it all should be. There are also statements that are phrased very differently form how they are phrased in the body. Please double check all statements and make the article body consistent.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not a word about its behaviour in the intro, which is supposed to summarise the entire article.
Added RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extra-pair young" Which means what?
Added RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 58 percent of the broods hatched" Why past tense suddenly?
Fixed RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • to FunkMonk's point about the culture section, I agree it could and probably should be removed. If it is kept it needs to be moderately expanded, just to elaborate about how it wan't just a throwaway reference but the central plot diver of the episode. That said, I'd still lean towards taking it out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cut RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes look good. Will you ask someone for help about the taxonomy issues? FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Yeah, I asked Jimfbleak. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - everything addressed, looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

The genus was created by Jean Cabanis ref is Cabanis 1850 Museum Heineanum 1 p.48 (in German) link which also fixes the date. personally I wouldn't give a cladogram, it's not required and usually attracts criticism. More comments to follow as and when Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • or a streak above its lores— I'm not convinced by the indefinite article
Removed RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its underparts, underwing-coverts, and rump are white, as the name suggests— lose the last bit. Although I see what you mean, the name doesn't suggest that the underparts and underwing-coverts are white
Better? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • starts in October and ends in December in Brazil and February in neighboring Argentina—Does that mean that the breeding season is two months longer in Argentina, or is the start later than October there?
Specified RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has black wings, with white tips on its inner secondaries, tertials, and greater wing-coverts. These features erode with age. As written, "features" applies either to the wings or the named feather tracts, neither of which is what you probably mean
It wasn't exactly specified, so I think it should be left like it is. Do you object? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song this swallow uses... alarm note it uses— repeat of "uses", seems a strange word choice anyway
Removed on instance RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is known to inhabit… It is also known to occur… It is additionally known—three uses of a word that isn't necessary anyway. "known to inhabit"="inhabits". I see that there are other pointless "knowns" further on too
Removed some instances RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First two paras of "Breeding" seem to have more repetition of terms than is strictly necessary
Removed a few instances of repeat terms. Good now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with most of the responses, but surely in the sentence It has black wings, with white tips on its inner secondaries, tertials, and greater wing-coverts. These features erode with age. it can only be the white tips that erode, not entire feathers? If that's so, it should be made clearer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: I will fix it then. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unless I've missed it, I think this just needs a source review now. Once can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber[edit]

  • References formatted consistently - just need to align page ranges. I use final two digits myself (like FN 6 & 7), but FN 8,11 and 12 have full page ranges. Either is ok, just choose one to follow. Also, ref 4 has publisher location, others don't. Just choose to have or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used full page ranges, removed publisher location. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 3, used once. material faithful to source.
  • FN 12, used once. material faithful to source.
  • FN 8, used nine times. material faithful to source, though the source does not explain why it is also called the white-browed swallow (however as it is very obvious happy not to worry about this). I also tweaked the wording to distance from the source (this can be tricky I know).

Ok all good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this is ready for promotion. One point I noticed, though: Why is "The white-rumped swallow, on average, lives for 2.12 years. The male lives slightly longer than the female." in the "Parasites" section? I think that might need a better home. I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at this after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 27 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/White-rumped_swallow/archive1&oldid=1052120140"