Talk:Ashy flycatcher

Ashy flycatcher has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 5, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Birds Low‑importance

Ashy flycatcher is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

A fact from Ashy flycatcher appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that one way to tell the African dusky flycatcher apart from the ashy flycatcher (example pictured) is that the former is cuter?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ashy flycatcher.

Photos[edit]

There are a good selection at Flickr. I've requested one. Richard001 (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a licensed one. --Chuunen Baka (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ashy flycatcher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 03:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this species myself when I was in South Africa! Some general comments for now; I have a detailed look soon.

Any chance to get a distribution map? In my opinion, these are super important and essential.
- Will ask another editor, not really great at these myself.
Males and females look identical I assume? Worth mentioning I think.
- Added.
Is it strictly resident or migratory? Could be mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.
What about a box with links to sound examples from xeno canto, as done is some other bird articles? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.
ashy blue-grey flycatcher, bluegrey flycatcher – I think these are different spellings of the same name, not different names.
- Removed.
species's placement – better "placement of the species"?
- Done.
both of these species – "these two species"?
- Done.
Iris color, leg color and bill color? Should be mentioned I think.
- Added,
has a varied repertoire of call types and many different calls – isn't "and many different calls" redundant?
- No, call types are basically types of calls, distinguished by their function, and different calls refers to different calls within each type.
I would link song and call. Not every reader knows the difference between the two, I think.
- Linked both, but I think they both currently redirect to the same article.
Ashy flycatchers also have a variety of calls, – already mentioned
- Reworded.
The ashy flycatcher is mainly breeds – grammar
- Fixed.
western South Africa – are you sure? I saw one in eastern South Africa.
- Fixed.
- BOW states "south along western South Africa", and the range map there also only shows it occurring in western SA.
  - That should be a mistake, and their range map clearly shows it in eastern SA, not western. The IUCN range map also shows it in eastern SA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Man I really need some sleep, fixed.
link woodland, not everybody knows what the difference is between woodland and forest.
- Done.
What do you think about a "similar species" section? I think this is what many readers are primarily interested in (since they want to identify their observation).
- Added.
That's all I have! Nice article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed all inline. Thanks for the review, this was an article I wrote a while back, so was missing a lot of stuff it should've had. AryKun (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you, looks good, I am promoting now, assuming that you will ask somebody to make a nice range map ;) Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Adult ashy flycatcher

... that one way to tell the African dusky flycatcher apart from the ashy flycatcher (pictured) is that the former is cuter? Source: Taylor, Barry; Boesman, Peter F. D.; Moura, Nárgila (2020-06-25). Billerman, Shawn M.; Keeney, Brooke K.; Rodewald, Paul G.; Schulenberg, Thomas S. (eds.). "Ashy Flycatcher (Fraseria caerulescens)". Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. doi:10.2173/bow.ashfly1.01.1. S2CID 241261361. Retrieved 2021-09-21.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Masli

Improved to Good Article status by AryKun (talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ashy flycatcher; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @AryKun: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cuter"[edit]

Hi @AryKun:, per WP:INTEXT, we shouldn't be including something in quote marks unless the attribution of that quote is noted in the text. Hence, just saying it is "cuter" without saying who said that is not permitted. Furthermore, however, the term is largely meaningless in scientific or encyclopedic terms and depends entirely on the observer. Saying it has a larger rounded head etc. is fine, and sure, dumpy is a reasonably well-defined term so that can stay, those are meaningful ways to distinguish the species from the other mentioned, but the article doesn't need mention of the "cuter" thing at all. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified the cuter description; as for the "scientific or encyclopedic terms" argument, it's literally quoted from Birds of the World, the updated online version of the seminal encyclopedia about birds. If they can use the word cuter, surely us pretending it's unencyclopedic to use any interesting words at all is just taking ourselves too seriously? AryKun (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]