Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red-throated wryneck/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 February 2023 [1].

Red-throated wryneck[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Father Christmas bought me The Wryneck for Christmas, which inspired me to return here after a long absence. Wrynecks are two species of Old World woodpeckers that don't act much like woodpeckers, spending most of their time eating ants. I've picked the African version to submit here. Thanks to Aa77zz and Doc Taxon for help with a couple of other sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

I made a few minor MOS tweaks here you should probably check to make sure I haven't done anything you disagree with – feel free to change anything you wish.

Is there no picture of a J. r. aequatorialis, for comparison with the other two??

Lead
  • "by the IUCN". As this is a little-known organisation, I think full naming in the lead would best.
Description
  • Link "coverts" for those of us who don't know all the nomenclature?
Status
  • Again I think it's best to full name the IUCN

That's the lot – very little to pick up on here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • SchroCat thanks for looking. Changes made as suggested. Although there are more than 40 images on commons, all but the solitary Ethiopian bird are from South Africa, no J. r. pulchricollisJimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All good from me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz[edit]

The article looks in good shape and I can't find much to quibble about. I don't have Gorman 2014 or Gorman 2022 (or Birds of Africa Vol 3). Here are some comments.

  • Consider citing Wagler 1830 when his description is first mentioned.

Breeding

  • "as a displacement activity" – true to source but this strikes me as very odd way to describe the behaviour of a bird.

Breeding

  • "They measure 22 mm × 20 mm (0.87 in × 0.79 in) and weigh about 3.4 g (0.12 oz)." This is incorrect – the eggs are certainly more elongated than this. The cited source, BOW, has: "size 20·5–23·5 mm × 15·5–17·5 mm, mass 3 (7)–3·5 g (6)". Taking the mid points of the ranges gives 22 x 16.5 mm with a weight of 3.25g. (There is a published formula to calculate the weight of an egg in grams (0.51 x L x B^2) where L and B are in cms. This gives 3.05 g ) I notice that Tarboton (p 107) describes the eggs as cream coloured rather than white (but pale cream and white are very similar). The eggs of J. torquilla are described as white in BWP (They are slight smaller at 21 x 15mm).
  • Not sure what happened there, I've changed and stuck with the mean rather than the formula. As a bit of OR, I think even the Eurasian eggs are more cream/ivory than chalky white, so I've changed to the catch-all "creamy white" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue looking and may post more comments later. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article claims that both the nominate race and pulchricollis are found in "southern Sudan". From the range map I think this should be South Sudan (since 2011). It is unlikely that there are two subspecies in South Sudan (they cannot be sympatric) and from the text of Cornell BOW it appears that only pulchricollis occurs there. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The typical generation length is 3.5 years.[1]" – where [1] is the IUCN. The IUCN doesn't provide a source for this number or explain how it was calculated – it would presumably require a long-term study – which are rare for African birds. The IUCN is not a suitable source for this type of information. (I notice that the IUCN also gives 3.5 years as the "Generation length" of the Eurasian wryneck).
  • "Fossil wrynecks are known from Europe in the Pleistocene, between 2.6 million and 11,700 years ago.[3]". Fossils are problematic and I usually steer clear of them. They are usually very fragmentary and there is often considerable uncertainty in their age and in how they relate to extant species. Nevertheless, you might consider mentioning the fossil described in De Pietri et al 2011 or perhaps just the date. A comprehensive phylogeny of the woodpecker family by Shakya et al. 2017 used the date of 22.5Mya for the split of Jynx from the rest of the Picidae to calibrate their phylogeny (p. 185): "We also applied two other calibration points: 22.5 Ma from the fossil Piculoides saulcetensis representing the split between Jynx from the rest of the Picidae (De Pietri et al., 2011);.." The De Pietri fossil consists only of "the distal end of a tarsometatarsus". The references are (I think both are open access):
    Shakya, S.B.; Fuchs, J.; Pons, J.-M.; Sheldon, F.H. (2017). "Tapping the woodpecker tree for evolutionary insight". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 116: 182–191. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2017.09.005.
    De Pietri, V.L.; Manegold, A.; Costeur, L.; Mayr, G. (2011). "A new species of woodpecker (Aves; Picidae) from the early Miocene of Saulcet (Allier, France)". Swiss Journal of Palaeontology. 130 (2): 307–314. doi:10.1007/s13358-011-0021-8..

- Aa77zz (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aa77zz I've incorporated those refs, for which thanks. I'm not completely convinced that what I've written makes sense though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentioning alternate common names in the Taxonomy and etymology section so that you can remove the cite from the lead. I've just looked at the use of common names. The HBW book article and BOW use "rufous-necked wryneck", the Helm guides (East and West Africa) both use "red-throated wryneck". BOW haven't implemented redirects - "red-throated wryneck" is not found. Note that articles in HBW usually list alternate common names.

Support – another excellent article from Jim. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aa77zz Thanks for your help and support, I've moved the ref as suggested. I couldn't find any other common variations beyond those used by Gorman 2014. The original article had another variation that wasn't actually listed in its source (the Gorman book with another publisher} Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering multiple sources by the same author?
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
  • Can you explain why FN8 is a high-quality source for the claim it's supporting? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Consider shrinking the four paragraph lead to two.
  • Link distal?

Umm. That seems to be all I have. So I am going to support but leave te two thoughts above as suggestions> Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gog the Mild thanks for review and support. Changed as suggested, didn't even occur to me that there would be a link for distal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:03, 9 February 2023 (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-throated_wryneck/archive1&oldid=1141025231"