Talk:Rufous-crowned sparrow/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi. I usually look at coverage and structure first, then the nitty-gritty (refs, etc; after any coverage and structure issue are resolved), then images and the lead. It's a nice article, although of course being a reviewer I'm bound to raise some issues :-) Philcha (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage & structure[edit]

  • Green tickY No glaring gaps, I'll post minor queries in comments on specific sections. --Philcha (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Structure looks pretty sensible. --Philcha (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy[edit]

Done (and everyone else's as well) and they all look good. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies[edit]

  •  Done USGS says nothing about 12 sub-spp and the ITIS page (framed at USGS) lists all 18. If you can't find a good source for "12" I suggest you list all 18. --Philcha (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12 reffed to Byers jimfbleak (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Strictly speaking it's the ITIS page that gives dates & author of first descriptions, and this would be a better source for each sub-sp. --Philcha (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ITIS is not a reliable source for this. It lists names (names were proposed in plenty in the collection era) and not what is considered valid sub-species. Shyamal (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, there's a similar problem with dinosaurs, especially during the Bone Wars. --Philcha (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done What's the source for "A. r. ruficeps" is "the nominate subspecies"? --Philcha (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) No source is needed for that ! When a new form of a previously monotypic species is discovered (the forms are usually geographically separated), the first discovered form is termed the nominate and the trinomial is formed by repeating the species epithet. Shyamal (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept that. If this goes to FA review it might need a ref showing that that's how the system works. --Philcha (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never had it queried at FAC, the wikilinked article explains the system jimfbleak (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done What's the source for "the species itself is listed as of Least Concern"? --Philcha (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's referenced in the taxobox and under Conservation. It's not an MoS requirement to reference the lead section jimfbleak (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno why I thought it was in this section - reviewer's droop? --Philcha (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done This would be a good place for a map of the distribution, for the benefit of non-Americans. You could use one of those at USGS as a starter - although you would have to make sure the map also covers the Mexican populations or provide a separate map for these. If you use either of the USGS maps, please explain in the ref why you choose the BBS /CBC map as the base. If you like I can use template:Annotated image to identify the states, e.g. by their 2-letter codes with w-links to the articles. --Philcha (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Shyamal! The taxobox is a good place. --Philcha (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (nice to have, not essential) We'd also need a map of the "Channel Islands" (Californian, see below!). If you like I could adapt File:Channelislands.jpg and use template:Annotated image for the text - that's almost always clearer than text within graphics, and is easy to adjust if the pic is re-scaled. --Philcha (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Channel Islands links to the wrong ones, in the English Channel. Should also make it clear in the text that these are the Californian ones. --Philcha (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done jimfbleak (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does, under "CURRENT BREEDING DISTRIBUTION" jimfbleak (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think it's worse than that - only one sentence in "CURRENT BREEDING DISTRIBUTION" mentions a particular sub-sp. (obscura), and the preceding section, "HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION" is the same. "CURRENT BREEDING DISTRIBUTION" says "members of the species have colonized Anacapa Island in the Channel Islands in recent years", i.e. sub-sp. not specified. --Philcha (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. Shyamal (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this source is only listing US ssp. sanctorum is a Baja form (Mexico) jimfbleak (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then another ref is needed for "However, this subspecies has not been seen since the 1970s". --Philcha (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under "CURRENT BREEDING DISTRIBUTION" it says populations on Todos Santos Island in Baja California have not been observed since the 1970's - although not explicitly named, we know from the range that this is sanctorum jimfbleak (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the source says "Rufous-crowned Sparrows (A. r. obscura) have not been observed on Santa Catalina Island since 1863 (Grinnell and Miller 1944), and populations on Todos Santos Island in Baja California have not been observed since the 1970's (Collins 1999)" - which looks to me like like the whole sentence is about A. r. obscura, not sanctorum. This source may be regarded as WP:RS, but the way it's written is a minefield. --Philcha (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cited now as likely extinct. Commented out the 1970 which I cannot verify. Shyamal (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for sortig out the sub-sp. issues, which were a PITA! --Philcha (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As sanctorum jimfbleak (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is a dupl of previous. I'm Going Slightly Mad -Philcha (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

changed to smallish and reffed to Byers
  •  Done Re "malar streak", malar is a DAB page. Why not simply "a thick black streak on each cheek" ? --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on this one- eyebrow to me implies hair, and there is an image. I've added "the area above the eye". Does this work better? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refffed to Byers now jimfbleak (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology and behavior[edit]

  •  Done any significant predators? --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
added with a reference jimfbleak (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done interactions with other birds, e.g. it bullies X and is bullied by Y, or tails / is tailed by Z in hope of finding food? (see e.g. Golden White-eye) --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anything other than it can join mixed-species flocks in the winter. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing issues[edit]

I've seen too many issues with references in the "Subspecies" and "Description" sections (have not yet checked "Description" or any other section). Please ensure that all "facts" are supported by good-quality refs, and let me know when you've done that - then I'll continue this review. --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to apologize for taking so long to get back to this- real world sickness, school, and trips have dominated my life for the past week or so. Thank you for your patience, and thank you Philcha for doing such a thorough review. Also, thanks to Jimfbleak and Shyamal for addressing most of the raised concerns.
In terms of the ref errors, most of them seem to be citing only half a sentence for the source. My apologies for that; I’ll try to be more careful in the future. I have gone through the rest of the article (Ecology on down) and doublechecked that the references all work out.
For the maps, do you think I need one of North America, one of Mexico, and one of the Channel (California’s, good catch) Islands, or would one of North America work? Also, does anyone know who makes maps and is still on Wikipedia? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think ideally one of SW USA + Mexico and one of the California Channel Islands as there are small and need a differnt scale. There are maps of the California Channel Islands. For SW USA + Mexico, all you need to do is find an uncluttered map of the region, crop it if it covers to big an area, spray in the distribution from the map in one of the sources, and then if you like I can use template:Annotated image to add the state codes for USA. Don't forget to add the citation for the distribution to the image's description page as well as to the caption. If you really don't feel comfortable making images, you could try Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. --Philcha (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat[edit]

  •  Done Content and refs look OK. --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a slight copyedit re Kansas, is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology and behavior (detailed check)[edit]

  •  Done Re "The Rufous-crowned Sparrow forages in pairs during the breeding season and in family-sized flocks in late summer and early fall, the source says, "They will sometimes forage in pairs during the breeding season and in family-sized flocks in late summer and early fall." -Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to 'The Rufous-crowned Sparrow will at times forage in pairs...' - tricky to word. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In the same sentence "fall" meaning autumn is an Americanism. If "autumn" is understood in the USA, please use that throughout the article. --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmm..not sure about this one -FA American Goldfinch uses 'fall' as well as american spelling. Will ask. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
update per this discussion, will change to fall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You changed it "autumn", which is fine - thanks! --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Please explain the displays used to distract potential predators - I understand "broken wing" and can guess at "tumbling off the bush", but "rodent run" does not paint a picture for me. Unfortunately you will need to find refs for the explanations. --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got one for a different species, but felt it was ok to solely describe the behaviour without ascribing it to a species (to keep faithful to the ref) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the abstract, it describes the display pretty clearly and suggests the behaviour orginated very early in passerine evolution, so that's fine. However I'd remove "Birds adopt a rodent-run display to distract predators from nests with young," as that highlights the lack of ref for use of decoy displays in general to distract nest predators. --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment, not problem) The source mentions decoy displays in its section "DISPLAYS" (under "BREEDING BIOLOGY") and says nothing about predators. A reader who knows even a little bird biology will understand that decoy displays are to distract potential predators, but a very strict enforcer of WP:V might object. It would be in your interests to find another ref.--Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diet[edit]

  • I've done a slight copyedit re insects, is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a slight copyedit re drinking, is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction[edit]

  • Re "successional scrubland":
    • The source does not mention "successional". --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the phrase mean terrain that's in transition? If so, between what and what? --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, the source describes them thriving in scrub which has been recently burned and remaining there for years. Generally these areas, if left long enough, will be colonised by trees and may become forest. So, yes, it is sort of transitional. I didn't write this bit and have only looked at it just now but seems ok to me as successional would be the logical term - the area is in transit from being burned to scrub to...whatever, forest I guess. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "breed in sparsely vegetated scrubland on hillsides and canyons ranging from 60-1,400 meters in elevation" and this sentence is about breeding. Later in the same section the source says "Rufous-crowned Sparrows thrive in areas that have recently been burned, and will stay in such open, disturbed habitats for years". Either way "successional" is dicing with WP:OR. I've edited to "in sparsely vegetated scrubland". Does that work for you? --Philcha (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "singing on posts at the edge of their territories" suggests they need human artefacts or other raised positions. It looks like a poor interpretation of the source's "especially at song posts defining territory boundaries", which to me suggests that they simply pick regular spots on the edges of their territories. --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I think you may be right. changed to 'from regular positions'. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subsequent one is enough - that source is now cited 32 times! --Philcha (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation[edit]

Looked OK when review started. But recently:

  • "Dry years have been noted to have a marked effect on their nesting success" - good or bad? --Philcha (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad, will fix it. Thanks Shyamal (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Sierra Nevada (Mexico) means more to me than any of its synonyms, what do you think? --03:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    As an Australian with little knowledge of the area, I note that the article itself is at Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (??) - I have no idea what the most common name is. We need some locals...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Googling for "Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt" suggests it's currently the standard term among geographers. OTOH there are a few Sierra Nevadas (it just means "snowy hills"). If we want to avoid the ambiguous term, we should teach the standard term by using it up front in the lead - and in "Distribution", which does not mention it by any name at all. --Philcha (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little more about behaviour and ecology would be good: serial monogamy; young leave the nest before they can fly; mixed-species flocks in winter; predators of adults and nestlings. --Philcha (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on fellas, let's have some action. I'm formally placing this article on hold, which means that in a week's time it will have either passed or failed. I hope it passes, as there's not a lot to do. --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am late to the party, I will try to chip in as well to get this over the line as a patriotic WP:birds member :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Need to sleep. Will have a further look later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've earned it - thanks for stepping in to help get this article on its way. --Philcha (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those last two are tricky, but I think are ok now. Now, I couldn't work out from the subspecies bit whether it was finally ok, so are we there yet? If not, what else is left? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're happy with my copyedits - both to-day and the ones I flagged earlier - all(!) that's left is:
  • the subspecies bit, where the source's presentation is bloody awful, and might need a decision table to make sense of it.
  • the lead, which I leave until the content is stable and should seldom take more than 10 mins. I've added comments above on the lead. --Philcha (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links check[edit]

The Link checker shows a few issues:

Conclusion[edit]

All the issues I've raised have been resolved, and no-one's complained about my few small copyedits.

This article meets the GA criteria - broad but focussed coverage, good, clear writing and a few other bits of MOS, neutral, appropriate images decently captioned and apparently complaint with copyright policy.

Many thanks to all of you - Rufous-crowned Sparrow for creating most of it (apparently WP is now a song post), jimfbleak and Casliber for stepping in to get it over the last few hurdles, and Shyamal gets brownie points for fixing the sub-sp. ref issues - which were a pain in the spinal column from base to apex. --Philcha (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big sigh of relief - thanks Philcha as your thorough review puts it that much closer to FAC :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - - please add all review commments / responses above this line - - - - - -

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rufous-crowned_sparrow/GA1&oldid=1141739870"