Talk:Russet sparrow/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This article is looking pretty good. I have some initial comments before I go to work.

DoneInconsistency in listing multiple authors for references. Inmost cases the last name is treated the same as others, (Last name, First) but in ref 12 only first follows that format, the rest are First name last name, etc).

Dealt with.

By the way, I will use Harvard citations for consistency if you only give the particular page in the HBW, rather than the contribution page numbers. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

DoneInconsistency in units. 14 to 15 centimetres (5.5 to 5.9 in) versus 6.7 to 7.7 centimetres (2.6–3.0 in)

Both Summers-Smith and Clement give detailed figures for most measurements, but only this for length.

You misunderstand me. You use 5.5 to 5.9 and 2.6–3.0. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this with use of the "to(-)" parameter in the convert template. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoneIt also occurs in towns where its relatives are not present. - given the lead is so short, could you spell out what relatives these are?

Done

Again the lead is very short, you could say a little more about breeding - just the bare bones details (it is monogamous, it is seasonal, both parents do this, etc etc etc.

The information available is rather random

DoneThe lead should preferably follow the order of the article, which this lead does not.

I'll see what I can do, but the current arrangement seems more readable. Perhaps doing this will make it reach a greater length

Description

DoneI'm glad you've reorganised the section per my pre-GA suggestion. The only problem left there is the iris colour, which seems a little out of place where it is. Perhaps you could also add bill and leg colour there?

I don't really know where to put it. (the iris, I mean) —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, I have done this for you now and cited it. Hope it is okay. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I forgot something there. Same in Clement.

DonePretty nit-picky, but you use bill and beak. They are the same thing, but bill is more usual for passerines, isn't it?

I only changed this when linking beak; should I use a piped link?

Question about the bibs - any evidence that they vary by status/age class, the way they do in other sparrows?

Nothing mentioned in sources. In the House Sparrow the situation is really more complicated than that.

DoneThe Russet Sparrow's basic call is a cheep or chilp, similar to that of other sparrows, but monosyllabic and soft - The calls of all the others in the genus/family are multisyllabic? This has the softest call of any sparrow? If not, a slight re-word may be needed.

The House Sparrow's call is usually disyllabic. I'll alter this.

DoneSummers-Smith describes the multi-note song of this species as "the most musical calls of any of the sparrows". Worth a mention?

Mentioned already, with a quote ("sweetest and most musical") from Summers-Smith 1988.

Taxanomy

Any idea who moved it to Passer or when? Not vital but it could validly be added here.

No idea.

Specifically, no idea who combined rutilans —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoneSummer-Smith has suggested that the species evolved (like the other black-bibbed sparrow species in Eurasia) in isolated ice-free refugia during the glacial periods 25,000 to 15,000 years ago, in this case the Yangtze valley. The details are sparce in my HBW, do you have anything more in your books? It sounds worthy of inclusion in this section.

Oh yes, I'll add that. Didn't notice it since it is in the conclusion of The Sparrows. No details on this species not in the HBW, I expect, but more perspective on the sparrows in general.

DoneMore of a comment, but wouldn't differences in subspecies appearance be better in description (where mention of differences in size is made?

I'll try and put some in both. Good catch. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

intensior, ... is found in southwest China and parts of India, Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam and t is distributed through southern China and Taiwan, and the mountain parts of Burma, southern Northeast India, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, where it is mostly resident. The Russet Sparrow also occurs as a winter visitor in southern Japan and the further south of China - but HBW has the range as NE India, SC and S China, N Myanmar to N Laos, with a mention in the movements that "a general withdraw from higher latitudes to areas south of breeding range, including N Thailand". It seems from the HBW and the map that the birds in Thailand are non-breeding migrants, how does that jive with your book?

No detailed information on winter range was available for Summers-Smith, but he included a tiny corner of Thailand on the intensior breeding range map. I don't like these lists of countries at all, but I don't see much to improve.

I will try and amend it to make it clear that the species moves further south than its breeding range in Thailand while not suggesting that it doesn't breed at all. Sound good?

DoneIn Hokkaidō, the Russet Sparrow finds a greater food supply for its young in more isolated forests, - what is an isolated forest? Isolated from humans or isolated from other forests?

I must say I don't know: all it says is "isolated forests", so I think I'll just remove this. I think it actually means wilder forests. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated from humans: some "km from the farm" —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some more reviewing later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some replies. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Easy pass. Well done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]