Talk:Red-capped robin/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I will be happy to review this article. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Great :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

After a first go through, this article will definitely get a full review (not quick failed). Stay tuned for further developments, sometime tomorrow (in the Pacific Time Zone, that is)... Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Review

This a very nice looking, well organized article. There is a lot of good information that covers the topic pretty well. The article has no original research, portrays the subject neutrally, is stable, is well referenced, and is well illustrated by media with no copyvios.

I have taken care of several items that are easier to fix than complain about. There were several grammar errors, but I fixed them (kind of a lot, please review for this before submitting). And the specific organization of the references used in the article had to be changed to that which can be deciphered by reading wp:cite. I actually liked your way better. (all changes looked fine)

There are some issues width breadth, prose, references, and jargon as well as a few miscellaneous points in other categories that I will leave for you to correct. They are more the exception than the rule and are perfectly fixable after which I'll approve the article.

Addressing main aspects of subject

The article covers the subject (animal, bird) well except:

• It doesn't talk about predation (of the bird), or lifespan. You could also discuss mass die off in the winter due to starvation, if that is known to occur with this bird. (predators added, and a little on lifespan. australia has much milder winters with little or no snow, so winter die-off doesn't happen like that. Many passerines are long-lived. I've not seen anything specific about this species but will have a look)

(predation) Very good, but belongs in the Habitat section

(lifespan) Done for GA anyway. It would be better to have a typical lifespan, but you can occasionally miss a major point (e.g. typical lifespan) of a main aspect of the subject (e.g. lifespan) as long as the main aspect is addressed somewhat.

• It doesn't tell us how common it is. The article makes it clear that the bird is widespread, but is like like a crow (widespread and common) or a black widow spider (widespread but not common)? Sorry for the North American examples, I couldn't think of animals native to Australia to use. (I understand and can dig something up. there isn't too much on this really. good catch)

Done. Looks like you've addressed it pretty well.

Jargon

Jargon is used where only where necessary and explained, except:

• The last sentences of the article uses the terms "fledge" and "parasitized". I think these are unnecessary jargon, so please rewrite the sentence providing the information without these exact terms, or at least explain them, especially by giving a more detailed explanation of what happens. You could describe how the nest is parasitized as most people have no idea that egg parasitization exists. Other forms of the offending words that aren't so jargony would be ok in this context. (explained parasitized)

Done. And very nice.

• In the feeding section, what other arthropods are eaten besides spiders? Can we just say spiders?

(insects are arthropods, but I will see what else is mentioned) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've wikilinked it. This is not a highly technical term, and maybe not worth the required effort to try to eliminate.

Clear, understandable prose

The article conveys information in clearly and in a well organized manner, except:

• the first paragraph of the feeding section, which I found very confusing. I just don't get the exact picture of the ways it hunts. Please rewrite. It might be better to describe what it hunts first by leading off the section with the second paragraph. (yes, I swapped paras so that the context is clearer. I will re read again to see what else I can do)

can swoop and catch creatures while airborne --is the prey still airborne, or is the prey on the ground?

pounces on prey on the ground is the bird on the ground when it pounces or in a low lying branch, or both?

• The prey is most commonly on the ground when caught, although airborne insects are sometimes taken. - added

Done.

• Spider webs, feathers and fur are used for binding or filling, generally in a tree fork or even mistletoe.

Latter phrase isn't clear that we're talking about the nest, maybe it should read:

Spider webs, feathers and fur are used for binding or filling, and the nest is generally placed in a tree fork or even a mistletoe bush. (done)

Done.

• Initially thought to be related to flycatchers, the Red-capped Robin was described as Muscicapa goodenovii by Nicholas Aylward Vigors and Thomas Horsfield in 1827,[1] before later transferral to the genus Petroica. Transferral? How about 'being moved'? (done)

Done.

• ...it gleans (takes prey while bird is perched)..., how about nixing 'bird is'? And thanks for the jargon explanation :) (done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.

References

The article is well referenced overall, but:

• There are three sentences with statistics (numerical data) that need specific citations. I've marked them with fact tags. (reffed now)

Done.

Misc.

• The article doesn't summarize this bird as a songbird, though it describes the behavior and says it's classified as such. 'Passerine' is used in the intro, but that doesn't exactly mean songbird. Songbirds are a subgroup of passerine birds. Also I'm thinking that it's a songbird should be said explicitly in the main text. And if you can find out, it might be nice to add when it sings and to what purpose. (I was unsure about using a suborder classification in the first line, but added two links to Songbird in the lead and body of text within the classification, and added passerida to lead. I figured detailed analysis of family and order level was best left to Petroicidae (?) Role of singing as behaviour is mentioned in para 3 of behaviour section, but I noted it in lead.)

Done.

• The caption for the video describes the picture holder, but should describe the video instead. (I don't follow - Eulo, Queensland is a place, not an editor - I trie to clarify it)

Sorry a computer glitch has kept me from watching the video, but I assumed something happens in the video. Can we put that in the description?

Good. The location part is still weird, and broken. How about in Southwestern Queensland. with no break?

Done.

I also have a couple of questions, if you might clarify for me:

It has longer legs than other robins. All robins or Australian robins (family Petroicidae)? (clarified)

Done.

The robin has a small black bill,[9] and dark brown iris and legs. Are we talking about the iris of the eye, or is this a bird term? (the eye. could just make it 'eye' as that is what people colloquially mean when they talk of eye colour, but 'iris' is more strictly correct - would a bluelink do?)

I think that I was confused because the singular of iris is used, and it needs to be plural. But I don't think iris will work well because it doesn't seem something that would be in a list of body parts. So I think 'eyes' would be best. If you really want to specify irises, then put it in another sentence and say 'irises of the eyes'. (not fussed and can see advantages of either way, so irises --> eyes)

Done.

If I can answer any questions you have or clarify anything, just ask. I use Done to mark issues that have been corrected up to standards, so please don't put that or check marks or whatever to indicate you've fixed something. You can place a short comment under the issue if you want to indicate you've finished something. Other short comments can be put there too, please place longer ones in a separate subsection following this review. Thanks! Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article status: On Hold

Good progress. Diderot's dreams (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only thing left is the moving of the predator information to another section. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was in two minds about this and realise I forgot to comment here last night. I have always put predators in the behaviour section (or a predation subsection within behaviour), eg Superb_Fairy-wren#Behaviour, as I felt it this heading was better than distribution and habitat - after all, what it eats gets discussed there. Other bird articles I have worked on which have ended up as FAs I have followed this pattern with. I meant to ask before what your rationale was, and I can also ask at WP:Birds I guess - we've never discussed it before AFAIRC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bird FAs - American_Goldfinch#Behavior. Tree_Sparrow#Survival in Tree Sparrow is a good option, but this section for this species could be quite slim. Rufous-crowned_Sparrow#Ecology_and_behavior opts for a broader subject heading (Ecology and) behaviour - less succinct but more inclusive I guess. Anyway, this last might be best, I guess I just can't see it in distribution and habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Habitat section where the predators paragraph would go nicely above the paragraph on problems created by humans. That would be technically correct as other animals are technically part of a habitat, but it is true that it's not really the common way of looking at habitat. Maybe 'Habitat and Threats' would work.

or like you said in Behavior but work it into the paragraph. You could talk about how the bird behaves to prevent predation or to evade predators.

Or add another paragraph on parasites and diseases and create a survival section. All of these would work. But not as is. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think the last option might work, I will work on it and jiggle it about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC) OK, see the last two diffs for two different solutions. I concede that the content is such that the flow is better with a therats section in habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried a modification of the threat section as a third choice, inverting the human-predator order and separate paragraphs. Looking at it, I don't like this order, but I like the two paragraphs.

My vote is option two: threat section under habitat, human first, predator second. But with two paragraphs, rather than one. Any of the choices is sufficient though. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I flipped them - agree that this order is better I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments by Sasata

Hi guys, I've just been copyediting this article for the last hour, and I just realized... this isn't the bird article I'm reviewing! I'll blame it on lack of sleep... Anyways, no need to waste the comments I saved for this article, so here they are :) Sasata (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Any specific reason why both names Sibley and Alquist link to Sibley (rather than just Sibley alone)? Also, can you please cite the study the sentence is referring to.

Good points. I've straightened out the wikilinks myself (Ahlquist with an 'h' has an article too), and added a fact tag for the study.

The definitive text, a landmark 1990 book is the origin. I lack the page number unofortunately but will endeavour to find it in a library sometime soon.

I suppose this will do. Science articles must follow the science citation guidelines, and should cite specific works talked about in the article. This would require a specific page number. However, the science citation guideline doesn't list biology as one of the sciences that should use the guideline, and this study is only used in a historical context. So I will say this isn't required, and rather tag this as "clarification needed" One such tag is not grounds for failing GA.

• "The Red-capped Robin moults once a year after breeding between December and April." Wasn't sure if I should put a comma after breeding - does it moult between Dec-Apr, or does it breed between Dec-Apr?

I think this is clear as is.

• "The oldest recorded age is 5 years and 7 months; a juvenile banded near Beverley, Western Australia in 1990 was recaptured 5 years and 5 months later." The clauses separated by the semicolon are redundant, please reword to eliminate one.

I think this is two separate cases. But let's reword to make that clear.

No no, it's the same case - reworded to "The oldest recorded age is 5 years and 7 months for a bird banded near Beverley, Western Australia in 1990" - i.e. juvenile was calculated as at least 2 months old, but may be unnecessary detail Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.

• Any data on the breeding age of adult females?

Good point. Please find if possible.

Gah! Nothing available - the social and breeding behaviour has not been much studied, and the source mentions that a few times, so I have inserted it into the article.//

It would be good to have, but not having it in of itself is not enough to torpedo GA.

• "...in a threat display while the female is actually incubating." Unclear - is the female herself incubating, or incubating her eggs?

It must be the latter, we would say 'being incubated' to indicate the former. Still let's add 'her eggs' as using the word 'incubating' without an object is a little unusual.

'her eggs' duly added to reduce ambiguity.

Done.

Thanks for the comments, Sasata. Let's address these where appropriate. And thanks for the copyedit, most of those changes were beyond GA or otherwise optional, but appreciated. You're a lucky guy, Casliber, you get two reviews for the price of one!(LOL) Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Much appreciated. Free time goes up and down a bit and will get to the last few. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Final evaluation

Congratulations, the Red-capped Robin is now a Good Article!

Building on an article with a good amount of well referenced and well organized material supported by colorful and informative media, the coverage has been improved, the grammar fixed, some murky prose clarified, and the content substantially enriched. There are a few loose ends as noted in the review, but they are not enough to not promote the article (I hope you will fix them in the future as well as can be done). I appreciate all the work you (and others before you) have done as will the several thousand people who read this article annually. And thanks for being open-minded about making changes to the article. If I can be of help in the future in any way, just ask. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)