Talk:Passer predomesticus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePasser predomesticus 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 16, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the fossil relative of the House Sparrow Passer predomesticus is known only from two upper jaw bones?

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'd never heard of this critter before...okay. Notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not essential, but bluelinking the stubs would be nice aesthetically.
    • I got one blue, and might be able to write something on Oumm-Qatafa soon. Not sure about the others; it seems Tchernov died a few years ago, but I can't find any good sources (such as an obituary; perhaps some exist in Hebrew). Ucucha 06:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any other information that can be added about the climate at the time or any associated species etc.?
    • There are tons of other birds found in the cave; mentioning them all would be too much and I can't see of a good reason to mention some particular ones (except for other Passer species, which are mentioned). I don't think there is much more to say on climate (and it might go off topic); what would you expect in the article? Ucucha 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the article does say it is likely to have been a wetter climate, but does not specify how. I thought there might have been some other information from the site on vegetation or something like that that was found there. If it is just a list of birds, then is it interesting that they are waterbirds or anything like that? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll have another look tomorrow at Tchernov. What do you mean by "does not specify how"? I don't think he said how much wetter it was. Tchernov's paper deals only with birds, not with plants or whatever else may have been found. Ucucha 10:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess what I mean is in recent years, I've seen paleontological articles become more like forensic crime scenes where increasing levels of detail are paid to the incidentals - i.e. associated features/fossils (flora or fauna) etc. in the location the fossil was found. This is a small article, so extra context is good. If it isn't there then it isn't there, but would be nice to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I looked at Tchernov again today, and I don't think there's anything worth adding. Ucucha 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any other information about the circumstances they were found? How far in the cave etc.?
    • Tchernov mentions the layer name, but not exactly where it is. Ucucha 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looking pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way, I found both Markus's paper and Animals and Archaeology while browsing at libraries here (among a good dozen books the catalogues here don't seem to include). (There pretty certainly is not a copy of Tchernov 1962 or Mourer-Chauviré here.) The one thing I'll add is that Markus's Passer iagoensis was collected in South Africa, and hence is what is now split as the Great Sparrow, Passer motitensis. P. iagoensis is likely a relative of the House Sparrow, the P. motitensis maybe a basal Passer species. —innotata 01:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  • Not applicable

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Do statements about simple resemblances absolutely require citations?[edit]

I made two edits referencing the bird's resemblance to living species of sparrow, but the author is notifying me that such edits are arbitrary as they do not have sources. However, I argued that they do not need sources due to the fact I simply mentioned obvious resemblances, and we have quite a few articles here regarding animals that list their resemblances to other animals, yet they have no need for a source. Yet Innotata claims that they are false information and should be taken down. I still do not understand why such edits need sources. I need this to be explained to me in layman's terms. Forgive me, Innotata, I simply don't understand why my edits are unhelpful. To clarify, I vow not to edit this page without notifying you, so you have my word. If you are thinking of locking it, there is no need to, I do not want to edit this article. It is not the point of my discussion. My point is that I simply want to understand my mistakes and learn from them, and grow as a wikipedian.

Articles regarding such animals mentioning obvious resemblances to other animals:

To be honest, I fear all of you will misunderstand this and I will be in serious trouble, with this getting me reported and losing my editing rights, but I feel I must bring this up anyway. Forgive me, for the misunderstanding and if my statements came off as rebellious. Firekong1 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to read through the whole message, but no, you aren't going to be banned or anything for complaining about any issues on Wikipedia, there's no need to be so overwrought about it. It might be good, though, to get more familiar with what citing and being true to sources means in general and on Wikipedia. Every statement on Wikipedia is supposed to represent what is stated in references. So here, Anderson specifically said something about how it is possible the species was associated with humans based on its location, not that it certainly was. None of the sources specifically say the species looked like its relatives, whatever that means. Even if this were written somewhere other than Wikipedia, I would be careful to phrase such a statement to make it clear that this does not mean the species, for example, had similar plumage (consider the existence of the Arabian golden sparrow).

As for those other articles, at least some of them cite sources that make those comparisons, look more closely?. It's likely some of those things shouldn't be there, but that isn't a justification for introducing uncited statements—much less those that don't match actually cited sources—into other articles. —innotata 15:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand. Thank you very much for your patience and understanding. I will continue to learn more about the rules/laws here. I hope we can work together and become mutual allies in the future! Firekong1 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Passer_predomesticus&oldid=1204395149"