Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cherry-throated tanager/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2024 [1].

Cherry-throated tanager

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the word's most endangered birds, with currently only 20 individuals known. I was able to get permission to use three photographs; previously we didn't had a single one. The article just passed a detailed GA review (thanks to User:Esculenta), and I now believe it is ready. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added.
Added, thanks --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 23:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there some sort of link that could be provided for nape? This seems to be referring to a specific part of the bird. I looked at Glossary of bird terms, but there's no entry for nape there.
I just added the respective entry to the glossary, but also explained the term directly in-text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Mata de Caetas? Is this is a forest, a settlement, etc.?
Mata is Portuguese for forest. I now added a translation, both to the first image caption and to the first mention in the text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be in good shape from a non-expert perspective; supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Saving a spot. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: that's the last of my concerns sorted. Great article: stylish, clearly well researched and eminently readable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to find much to complain about -- admittedly, I'm not an ornithologist, but this certainly seems like a clear, authoritative and polished article.

Cool, many thanks for the review! I addressed everything as best as I could:
  • The cherry-throated tanager belongs to the tanager family Thraupidae and is thought to be most closely related to the only other member of its genus, the hooded tanager, though this has yet to be confirmed by genetic analysis. : consider breaking this long sentence after Thraupidae.
Done.
  • The cherry-throated tanager is a distinctive bird: what does distinctive mean here? Aren't most birds distinctive (at least to bird lovers) in the sense that they have characteristic features that can be easily recognised?
I added "visually distinctive", if that helps? Most birds are less easy to identify than this one, and some have a totally nondescript plumage and can only be identified based on sound.
  • The undersides are white, contrasting brilliantly with the red patch.: brilliantly reads to me as an aesthetic term rather than a descriptive one: strongly?
Yes, that's better, changed.
  • tarsus (lower "leg"): why the quote marks here?
Because it only looks like the lower leg, but in fact it is part of the foot (the upper thigh in birds is usually not visible, it has a horizontal orientation and is hidden in the plumage below the belly).
  • Would be good to find some other solution than scare quotes: perhaps a footnote if nothing else? Mind you, a lot of sources seem to describe it as part of the leg (the body part of the same name in humans is the ankle, which can be considered part of either). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "the lowest, featherless part of the leg". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We clarify that the Atlantic Forest is in Brazil on first mention in the lead, but not in the body.
The Atlantic Forest is not restricted to Brazil, we only say that the tanager is restricted to the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Do you think we should add more background on the extent of the forest?
I think that would help, and consider rephrasing the lead to something like "Brazilian areas of the Atlantic Forest": "the Atlantic Forest of Brazil" reads as if the forest itself is of or somehow belongs to Brazil (cf. "the Pacific Ocean of China", "the Alps of France", "the Danube of Hungary" -- none of those sound quite right to me). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added, and wrote "the Atlantic Forest in Brazil" instead of "of Brazil". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dense Ombrophyllous Montane Forest, a type of Atlantic Forest: I don't think the second capitals are right here: something can't be a type of a proper noun ("a type of Atlantic Ocean", "a type of Berwick-upon-Tweed"). Perhaps "Dense Ombrophyllous Montane Forest, characterized by tall trees with abundant epiphytes, which is found in [certain areas of?] the Atlantic Forest"?
Right, done.
  • the species' ecology: MOS:' (I think) advises "the ecology of the species" in this scenario.
Fixed, together with another similar case.
  • whereas Nova Friburgo is from a different mountain range: part of?
Of course, yes.
  • It was often observed that one of the flock members sat higher and was noisier than the others, for unclear reasons: why the past tense here? "Has been"?
Changed.
  • Parasites are unknown: does this mean "we never find them with parasites" ("antisocial behaviour is unknown in Singapore") or "we don't know which parasites they have"?
The latter. Hope I made that clearer now.
  • Three additional nests have been found until 2020: had been found by 2020?
Yes, fixed.
  • Brettas' sketch: MOS:' prefers Brettas's sketch.
Changed.
  • a 2005 study deemed this relatively optimistic estimate to be "premature".: MOS:QUOTEPOV would advise dropping the quotes here.
Dropped.
  • The extraction of heart of palm (Euterpe edulis) leads to additional forest degradation. The species is particularly susceptible: as we've just introduced a new species, clarify that we're back to the birds.
Done.
  • Cherry-throated Tanager Conservation Program: no capital on Throated?
MOS:TITLE has this: "Follow the majority usage in independent, reliable sources for any given subject (e.g. The Out-of-Towners but The History of Middle-earth). If neither spelling is clearly dominant in sources, default to lowercase after a hyphen […]." The spelling used in the article is how the project spells it themselves.
A Google search returns three pages of results, but none of the hits has "throated" capitalised. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was tested if the birds could be supported with extra food: I don't quite understand what we're imagining here. Why wouldn't it be possible to feed the birds?
There are many risks here that could make such an endeavour counter-productive. I reformulated it: and supplemental feeding of mealworms has been tried
  • and in 2021, the team published an action plan for the conservation of the species: I think this would be clearer if we shifted in 2021 to the end and lost the comma.
Done.
  • There are proposals to develop ecotourism around the tanager, which could potentially benefit local communities.: and, based on what we said above, risk wiping it out? The sequencing here might need another look.
I reformulated: "Tourism targeting the species can be problematic if sound recordings are used excessively to attract the birds." This should make clear that ecotourism can work without playback of sound recordings, and is not necessarily problematic for this reason.
  • and to build pride of local communities in their natural heritage: this isn't quite idiomatic: instil pride in local communities about...? But then it reads as slightly woolly to me: I'd be happier if we could demonstrate some concrete outcome in this direction.
I tried "and to foster pride within local communities for their natural heritage", hoping that's better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you really feel pride for something (unless perhaps we mean feeling pride vicariously when another person has achieved something: 'her mother was proud for her when she passed the exam'), but you do feel pride in it or about it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I reverted to "in". Or maybe "and to encourage local communities to take pride in their natural heritage", if that's better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works, but again I have very mild concerns that it's a bit meaningless: it reads like something you'd get in a presentation from the people running such an initiative. What does it look like, concretely? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not keen of removing the part about the flagship species, as I think that this is crucial information. The sentence in question describes precisely what a flagship species is supposed to do: One species that people can relate to, so that they care about conservation. Without support from the local populace, long-term conservation cannot work, it is an integral part, so I think we have to mention it. What such outreach looks like concretely you can see in their newsletter (e.g., [2]). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you were asking for something concrete, the discovery of populations of a critically endangered catfish is a direct result of the tanager flagship species program, as discussed here [3]. The catfish is briefly mentioned, but I could make a separate sentence out of it, if you think that's necessary to make the point? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no -- I have no problem with the flagship species idea; my issue is the claim that it's "encouraging" local communities to take pride in the natural stuff around them. The doctor can encourage me to exercise more and eat less, but that doesn't necessarily mean I do it, or that the encouragement makes any difference to anything we both care about. If there's a nice link to be drawn that says "people said they were inspired by their pride in the cherry-throated tanager to go and look for other endangered species, and ended up finding an endangered catfish", that would solve the problem nicely. Similarly, if there has been a media campaign costing X thousand dollars to promote the image of the bird, that would also be a good thing to hang the statement on. This is a case where I'm not sure WP:ABOUTSELF sources are great, because we need some external measure of whether the encouragement a) meaningfully exists and b) is actually important enough to make WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely rewritten that part, please see if that's better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

I should try doing a source review for a biological article for a change. The sources here look high quality for the subject; almost everything is cited to academic publications, whether that be reports or journals. I checked the two Saíra News ones that gave me pause; its a newsletter of the research institute, which fits for an ABOUTSELF statement on that land acquisition and the very unlikely to be challenged news about the aracaris preying on the nest.

Citations are consistently laid out, and use RPs for multipage articles. There were a couple situations where cited were in the wrong order; I resolved these. Seems good to go for me; Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I made a few minor copyedits; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

  • "This increased to 20 individuals by the end of 2023, probably thanks to increased conservation efforts at Mata de Caetés, which at that time probably had 15 individuals": I think we need a date instead of "at that time", since otherwise this seems to say that there were both 15 and 20 individuals at the same time. I thought the intended meaning might be 2020, as mentioned in the previous sentence, but that can't be the case as only 10 individuals were known then.
Yes, both refer to 2023: 15 individuals in the Mata de Caetés, and the remaining five in the other reserve, therefore 20 in todal. I hopefully made this clearer now.
  • The first paragraph of the "Population status and threats" section isn't strictly chronological; I think it would read more naturally if it were.
Made it chronological now.
  • "the relatively large Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve might potentially house yet undetected birds": "might" is redundant with "potentially"; perhaps "has the potential to house"?
I went with "it is possible" to make clear that this is merely speculation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the only issues I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike! All comments addressed so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga

[edit]


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/Cherry-throated_tanager/archive1&oldid=1252138419"