Talk:Purple-crowned fairywren

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Purple-crowned fairywren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mpg.de/1028786/W001_Biology-Medicine_062_067.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Nearly GA

this article i think is nearly good as other fairywren article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebu Flowerpecker (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think it's a good GA nom, just needs a bit of work in the Taxonomy and systematics section. AryKun (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of reference errors at the moment. MeegsC (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@MeegsC: are those reference errors in the "Taxonomy and systematics" section, or found throughout the article? -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet:, I mean in the actual reference section. There are plenty of red error messages showing there which should be cleaned up before it gets the stamp of approval. MeegsC (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@MeegsC: thanks — fixed! [1] -Darouet (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: can you see all the "Cite journal requires |journal=" messages? Those should be fixed too. My guess is that someone has put the journal name into the wrong parameter. MeegsC (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@MeegsC: I'm not getting those errors, but I do see when I check carefully that some "cite journal" instances had used the "publisher" instead of the needed "journal=" param. I've fixed that now [2] - let me know if you get any more errors. Not sure why I'm not seeing them... -Darouet (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet:: I did the remaining trio. They were "|Journal=" rather than "|journal=" and apparently that's enough to make the cite journal template ignore them! Insert eyeroll here. ;) MeegsC (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@MeegsC: thanks for that! -Darouet (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@AryKun and MeegsC: I have added an extra section under the "taxonomy" header, called "evolution," and it appears that Arykun you also improved and expanded the taxonomy portion of the article. I think we've all improved the references. In my view this article passes GA. -Darouet (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet:: I think it's close! It does need a proper lead though. The lead should summarise the main points of the article, and this one doesn't do that yet. MeegsC (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@MeegsC: fair ... -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Purple-crowned fairywren/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaptainEek (talk · contribs) 01:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Howdy hello! Good work here, and what an interesting little bird. I have made some simple changes already, here are my comments. These are of course suggestions, and you can say if you think a certain suggestion is not good, or you have a better solution :)

• The lead needs to be longer, and should not have citations in it. I'd expect about two to three paragraphs for something this length. It should not have citations, because that material should be cited in the body, and the lead should summarize the article.

I've finished writing a longer lead that I think summarizes the article pretty well. I based it on the leads for the superb and splendid fairywrens, but if anything needs to be added, please tell me. AryKun (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Images should have alt captions that are short, yet descriptive, for those who are visually impaired and use screen readers.
• Could a few more images be found? Especially of the nest, eggs, or young. I usually suggest using Flickr, you can search Flickr for free images (under license select "commercial use allowed") and then easily upload them to Commons using the Flickr upload bot. However having just looked on Flickr, there are only three images that fit that.

I have checked on Flickr and Commons, and I can't find any new images that aren't plates. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Failing an image of the birds, an image of their preferred habitat would be good.
• I think (pardalotes, scrubwrens, thornbills, gerygones and allies) is perhaps not necessary, there is already a link to the article about them there.

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Make sure to use the convert template on the distances for imperial unit audiences, such as under habitat and distribution

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Any number smaller than ten (except when in convert templates) should be written out.

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Species should be wikilinked, especially if its just the specific epithet. I see a few missing links

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Except in unusual circumstances, citations should be all at the end of a sentence. See first sentence in Diet and foraging. Also, does that sentence really need that many refs?

Done. I moved the refs to the end of the sentence and removed a couple of them. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think your sectioning is overkill. Basically all of them are only one paragraph. I would combine Nest predation, Longevity, Threats, and Invasive species all into one level three header under behavior and ecology, and title it "Survival"

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would merge Inbreeding avoidance into breeding.

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would rename Breeding to "Breeding and nesting" and merge Territoriality into it at the begining. Alternatively, I would simply put the territoriaty at the start of the behavior and ecology, and have no separate header for it.

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Conservation should be made a level three header under Status, or just merged right into Status

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Status shouldn't have subheadings, the material there is not substantial enough for subheadings. This will require a bit of rewriting to make it flow smoothly.

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Distribution and habitat also doesn't need subheadings

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme database is an external link, it should be made into a reference, and mention of it should be removed.

Done. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

On references: "A Species Tree for the Australo-Papuan Fairy-wrens and Allies (Aves: Maluridae)". Systematic Biology. needs to be made into a proper reference

Done AryKun (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Malurus coronatus (Purple-crowned Fairywren) – Avibase". avibase.bsc-eoc.org. Retrieved 2017-12-03. needs to made into a proper ref

I don't know how to do that, so might need some help. AryKun (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would entirely remove van Doorn, A (2007). Its a thesis, which has not been peer reviewed. Regardless, everything it is being used to cite already has references, so it is redundant.

Done. AryKun (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Can a DOI or other unique identifier be found for Kingma, SA; Hall ML; Peters A (2011)?

I checked, and the ref already seems to have a DOI. AryKun (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@AryKun: Just a few things remain, do you plan to finish this up? A general timeline would be helpful :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I've finished up the rest of the suggestions that you had, so I think the article is good to go. AryKun (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek:Are you ready to finish up the review? I think that the article now looks good, but if you think that there are any issues, I'll be glad to finish up as soon as possible. AryKun (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

AryKun, Sorry I didn't see your response a week ago, without a ping most folks will miss such things :) I have gone and cleaned a few last things up on my own and passed it. When giving number ranges, use endashes, not regular dashes. You can use Template:endash to easily insert them. I also have expanded the lead more. Otherwise, great job, thanks for making those fixes! Keep up the good work!! If you decide to take it to WP:FA status, let me know and I can give further assistance. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)