Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden swallow (bird)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2017 [1].

Golden swallow (bird)[edit]

Nominator(s): RileyBugzYell at me | Edits , Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a swallow in the genus Tachycineta. It isn't very well studied, like, I daresay, most Caribbean birds. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Since this is seems to be the WP:Primary topic, I think this article should be moved to Golden swallow, which is now a disambiguation page with only one other topic (a film) linked. The disambig page should be moved to Golden swallow (disambiguation) instead. Review to come, but this issue is pretty important. Sorry I only noticed it after nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at the page views, and just at the google search results, there is no primary topic. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 13:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The movie is obviously named after a bird, so it would mean the bird has the "right" to the title, being the original subject... FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the generally accepted "criteria" says that which is the original topic doesn't matter, thus invalidating your argument. Furthermore, the top hit on google for "golden swallow" is the movie. But, the second hit is for the bird, meaning that none of them are the primary topic. Also, the movie formerly (before I started the improvement of the bird, but even so, the page hits now are about equal) had many more views than the bird. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the movie is located at a different article title (Golden Swallow (1968 film)), so the bird isn't even competing with the movie for the name. This is about whether Golden swallow really needs to be a disambiguation page, or if that could become Golden swallow (disambiguation) instead, thus freeing up the unbracketed name for the bird. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since there is no primary topic, then the dab page should be kept at "Golden swallow". RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 18:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's very much up for discussion, let's see if others chime in. I'll go on with the rest of the review when I've finished the map. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With just two articles using this name and one having to have a date in its name I'd move this to golden swallow, dab at the top to the film and remove the dab page entirely. Oh, and I'll review soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a formal move request once the FAC is over. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making it easy! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map now added. Any reason why this illustration[2] isn't used? Seems a nice counterpart to the one in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added illustration. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subspecies should be listed in the taxobox, with authorities.
  • "Adult of the race sclateri perching on an artificial nest box" Two things with this caption. First, I'd assume all nest boxes are artificial? Seems like stating the obvious. Also, perhaps less confusing to say subspecies instead of race there, since you use that term in the rest of the article. I know the terms can be used synonymously, but it's better to be consistent and clear.
Changed RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The current genus Tachycineta, on the other hand, was originally described in 1850 by the ornithologist Jean Cabanis." This is missing the point, which is that the species was moved to this genus at some point, which contains other species. Therefore there is no need to mention when that genus was named (it is not monotypic), the important part is when the species was moved to the genus, by who, and why.
  • "This swallow is bitypic" The species is. You shouldn't mix common terms with taxonomic terms here.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This swallow is bitypic, consisting of two subspecies; the second, T. e. sclateri" You should mention the nominate trinomial first here, may not be obvious to most people what the name is.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could mention much earlier that the nominate subspecies is probably extinct. For example, you refer to it in present tense under description, and you don't refer to it by name under distribution, you just say the species is extinct in Jamaica.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The golden swallow is native to Hispaniola" I'd add "the island of Hispaniola". Most people may not know it is an island, as they probably know the names of the countries located on it instead.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The golden swallow is victim to various mammalian" Victim sounds overly dramatic, something like "preyed upon" would be better.
What??? Anyways, I think that this should be kept, as mammals are thought to be a possibly cause of extinction of the Jamaican subspecies. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only species that is known to inhabit nest boxes occupied by golden swallows is Polyancistrus loripes, a species of katydid." State this is an insect, by reading the text I thought it was another bird.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume much of the behaviour section applies specifically to the extant subspecies, in which case it should probably be noted.
  • The intro seems slightly too detailed compared to the length of the article body. Could be summarised further.
Is it good now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Only a few points missing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hume/Walters source[3] has some info about the extinct subspecies not mentioned here: It's last major roosting site was destroyed in 1987, it was considered common in the 19th century (gradually declining during the century), and there is no mention of its range between Cockpit Country and the Blue Mountains (Jamaica). These seem like significant omissions.
Added mention. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add the part about last roosting site too. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added now. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it looks good now, but I still think the two subspecies should be listed in the taxobox, but this seems to be inconsequently done across other FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Sabine's Sunbird[edit]

First off good on ya for not listening to me when I was doubtful this could get to FAC size (not listening to me is an important life lesson for anyone). Now on with the review.

  • Lead- unless there's a good reason, I think the lead should follow the same subject order as the main text. This lead jumps around a lot. Status is towards the front, in the main text it is at the end. At the very least in the first paragraph I think it's essential to place the habitat requirements after the distribution.
I think that its status should be put near the front of the lead, as it is relatively important and is probably the most studied subject of this bird. Otherwise, I did do what you wanted. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An esoteric point, I know typically we describe the nominate and then explain how subspecies differ, but since the nominate is extinct wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around?
I guess, but the nominate race was described first with the other subspecies being described in terms of changes from the nominate. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early naturalists were not aware of this species Do we know that for sure? Records can be lost.
I suppose, just going on what this paper said (Graves was the guy that scoured the island for 20 years trying to find it). Given its delay in description, I reckon it's not a far-fetched point to make. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a section about its status in the taxonomy section when it's also in the lead and its own section?
Removed RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information about why the two subspecies are treated as a single species as opposed to two species? When where they lumped? Has anyone advocated splitting them?
I have been trying to hunt this. This is proving really hard Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't anything there isn't anything. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Have you found anything yet? Also, could you (after you hopefully find it) do the subspecies taxobox thing, as I am pretty inexperienced in what authority to cite, etc. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know its habitat requirements in Hispaniola (with the eponymous pines) , what about Jamaica?
Could not be found RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that then. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Graves paper does discuss habitat in part - I have read it a couple of times and will see what/how to add something. I think we can add a bit more than what we have, just need to digest it and think... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will look tonight. been distracted.... added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabine's Sunbird: Is it good now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predators and parasites - surely this should just be predators in this instance?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominate subspecies is presumed to be extinct, possibly because of habitat loss and predation. The population is declining, mostly due to shifting agriculture and predation by introduced mammalian species surely that should be the remaining population?
Added "The remaining T. e. sclateri...". RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: What do you think now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Looks pretty good, but of course some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me?

  • The description in the lead is a bit too detailed for my taste, since it's all repeated later, but I'll leave that to you
I did that a bit, hopefully I will summarize it more later. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • inhabits the inner hills of islands— do you mean "interior"?
Reworded RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • has blue-green forehead —missing "a"
I actually had to reword this, so now it is all resolved. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This swallow is bitypic, consisting of two subspecies— This swallow has two subspecies is simpler and avoids the undefined technical term
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • clade —needs link
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You correctly use BE "metre", "centimetre" and "fibre" in this article, but consistently use AE "color", which is not appropriate for this swallow
Done, with much regret RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • insects of the order Hemiptera, and various other insects—avoid repeat of "insect" in the same sentence
Reworded RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Looks good but there are formatting problems with the references that should be easy to fix.

  • Ref 2 - add place of publication (London) for consistency. It is easier for the reader if the link is to the actual page - and I prefer to use BHL when available as in this case. url=http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/21519975
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6 Bryant (1866) Need name of journal (Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History). Normally sentence case is used for the title of a journal article.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 Cory (1884) The Birds of Haiti... This is a book. Need publisher and place.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 8 Cory (1984) "Description of Several New Birds .. Need name of journal (Auk). Need sentence case for article title.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10 Whittingham et al (2002). Sentence case for title of article.
Actually, everything here is correctly capitalized, the things that are capitalized are supposed to be that way. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12 Proctor (2016). Why not include a link here as the thesis is unpublished?
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13 Ridgway & Friedmann (1901). This is a multi volume book not a journal so need publisher and place. But this reference appears to be incorrect - the descriptions of the swallows are in Part 3 published in 1904 on pages 101-102 available on BHL. (I had to search - the species are called Gosse's Swallow and Sclater's Swallow) ie: Ridgway, Robert; Friedmann, Herbert (1904). The birds of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the higher groups, genera, species, and subspecies of birds known to occur in North America, from the Arctic lands to the Isthmus of Panama, the West Indies and other islands of the Caribbean sea, and the Galapagos Archipelago. Vol. Part 3. Washington DC: Smithsonian Museum. pp. 101–102.
Switched. Thanks for actually making the citation. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14 Townsend et al (2008). Sentence case for title of journal article.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15 Hume & Walters (2012). Place of publication? (for consistency)
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aa77zz: All done, thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another:

got it/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supported above. Reference 12 Proctor (2016) is a dissertation for a Master's degree. I'm unhappy with the use of this type of source. Theses and dissertations are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as journal articles. If the results of a study are important they would normally be written up and submitted to a journal, usually in collaboration with the supervisor. The submitted article will then be peer reviewed before publication. The dissertation by Proctor is unusual in that it consists of what appear to be two prepared manuscripts each with other authors including his supervisor David W. Winkler listed on the title page. It seems likely that these two manuscripts have been submitted for publication. If and when they eventually appear in print after peer review, it would be good to cite the published articles rather than this dissertation. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agreed/we can do that. The dilemma is weighing up comprehensiveness vs breadth and Reliability of sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we will do that. I'm pretty glad that I found that, or I don't think that this could have been expanded to FAC appropriate levels. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them, I think we just need image and source reviews now. These can be requested at the usual place. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only the image review is needed—Aa77zz did the source review. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. That's why it's good to bold "source review", then I don't miss it! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Image review has just been completed. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • Images are PD-old or CC-licensed with credible "own work" claim - OK.
  • Sufficient source and author information - OK.
  • Map has source information - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GermanJoe: Thanks for the image review! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Golden_swallow_(bird)/archive1&oldid=1138461745"