Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mangrove swallow/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2017 [1].

Mangrove swallow

[edit]
Nominator(s): RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Central American swallow. I have been working on this article for a good amount of time, and I believe that it meets all the criteria for FA status. Please leave suggestions so I can improve the article. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now:

I'd make the lead into two paras not four - looks too choppy as is.
The feathers transition from its most green when fresh to blue with wear. - I think the grammar of this sentence needs fixing
The mangrove swallow is a seasonal breeder, laying two broods every season. Its breeding season is about five months - lots of seasons here. I'd also add that the first segment is obvious and redundant. Could trim to something like "The mangrove swallow lays two broods over its five month long breeding season"
Mangrove swallows forage close to their nest when they are foraging for the nestlings. When foraging for nestlings - could trim a "forage" here too I suspect...
The new genus Tachycineta was created for this group of swallows by German ornithologist Jean Cabanis in 1850 - sounds odd given the swallow wasn't described until 1863....
Thanks for the review! I made the lead into 3 paras, but not 2 like you suggested because I felt that the description of the swallow and its status/predators and parasites wouldn't go well together. I fixed the grammar part, and I removed a few occurrences of season. I also trimmed down the 2nd para of the breeding section. I fixed the genus thing to make it sound better also. Again, thanks. It took me a few days to get to this, I guess I am addicted to Homeworld. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed the lead from 3 paras to 2 now. It took a bit of time to think of how to do it, but I eventually did it. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) - I changed the lead back to 3 paras, but I expanded the lead a good amount, so hopefully it won't appear choppy. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See para 2 in lead - generally keeping to singular (like this) is good for flow.

Look, not looking too bad. Need to take another look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see another other prose issues jumping out at me nor gaps in information, and there doesn't appear to be a huge amount written about this species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

Disclosure: I am a significant contributor to this article. The text is probably as comprehensive as is reasonable for this little studied species.

  • My main issue is the lack of number consistency. The lead starts singular, but is plural by the second sentence, then back to singular in the second paragraph. Diet is half singular and half plural. Please go through an make everything consistently singular
  • Just a suggestion, which you can ignore. In the last para, you could write the range as 3.17 million square kilometres (1.22 million sq mi), which I think looks neater, {{convert|3.17|sqkm|sqmi|disp=preunit|million }}

In 24 hours, I'm going away for a few days, so i won't react to your responses until I return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I checked again for number consistency, hopefully I will improve that next time I contribute. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, that looks OK now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Nice, with such vertically long images, it can be a good idea to add the "upright" parameter, like the left one here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]
  • The image used for the Infobox is an unfortunate choice in that weirdly one cannot see the black colour of the wings.
    Should I replace it?
There isn't a lot of choice on commons. I've created a tighter crop of File:Mangrove Swallow.jpg that is used lower in the article but the quality is poor. The hand-held bird File:Mangrove_Swallow.JPG is sharp but doesn't clearly show the supraloral white streak. (note the subtle difference in the file names) Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead *Although the two sentences on breeding in the lead follows on from a statement on the breeding range, I think it would be much better to put the breeding section after the description - as is done in the body of the article. The present order gives undue emphasis to breeding. *"appears in three species of Tachycineta: the violet-green swallow,..." This is only mentioned in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the text in the body of the article. *It is worth adding to the description that the sexes are similar.

  • "It is a seasonal breeder ..." - this seems banal - birds are usually seasonal breeders.
  • "Its nests are frequently found to be 2 metres (7 ft) above the ground." - but the body contains the text "The nest is usually found to occur below 2 metres" - which seems much more likely.
"Its nests are frequently found to be 2 metres (7 ft) below the ground, near water." is obviously nonsense. I've recast the sentence. Please check to see that you are happy. Aa77zz (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Perhaps worth mentioning in the lead that the mangrove swallow nests in a hole or crevice. *"Although this is true,..." - this is editorializing - see WP:EDITORIALIZING Taxonomy and etymology

  • Move link to Tachycineta to previous sentence.
    I actually already had a link to it in the lead, so I removed the link in this section and moved up the link as far as I could.
The usual practice is to have one link in the lead and another in the body. If the article is very long, some editors add further links in later sections. Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*"...confirm it to be a full species." perhaps "...indicate that it should be considered as a separate species.

Description

  • " averages 13 centimetres" - but your source HBW has 11–12 cm. (I'm looking at the online version)
  • The bill is not mentioned by the cited source - HBW.
  • Better to mention the bill after the discussing the plumage.
  • What colour are the eyes, the legs and feet?
    Sorry! I forgot to include that, they have it.
  • "The adult's tail is, on average, 42 millimetres (1.7 in) long" - but later the article states that male length is 42mm and the female 40.8mm - so the average must be less than 42mm
  • "average of 97.5 millimetres (3.84 in) for the male" - but your source Cornell - has "Male: wing length 96.8 (93.4-101.1)"
  • Wikipedia articles generally do not include detailed measurements of bird parts - so all these numbers could probably be omitted - just state that on average a male bird has a shorter tail and longer wings.
  • "Tumbes swallow is differentiated..." add article "The Tumbes swallow is differentiated..."
  • "lack of white stripes above its eyes." -> lack of a white stripe above each eye.

Breeding

  • "In addition, mangrove swallows are solitary." this might be better at the start of the paragraph.
  • "when breeding and is very territorial." - isn't this similar to saying they are solitary? Add at the beginning?
  • data is plural
  • perhaps be clearer that the long breading season means that the "laying is not synchronous within a population." HBW
  • "breeding synchrony index" - this is very technical and I don't think should be included in the article.
    I added a quick explanation of the term.
  • Perhaps just give the average egg dimensions.
  • Do both sexes incubate the eggs?
    I tried to find that, but I didn't find anything about that.
  • Has anything been published on moulting?
    Nope, unfortunately, there is not much on this bird.

References

  • Need to be consistent in use of periods after author initials.
  • Ref 6 - Winkler and Sheldon 1993 - link is broken
  • Re 11 - Ricklefs 1971 - this is a publication in the Auk and should be formatted using cite journal: Robert E. Ricklefs Foraging Behavior of Mangrove Swallows at Barro Colorado Island The Auk Vol. 88, No. 3 (Jul., 1971), pp. 635-651
I've added the year and removed the accessdate. Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the first name of Stutchbury: Birdget -> Bridget. Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14 - Dyrcz, Andrzej (2008) - this article was published in 1984 - not 2008.
I've corrected the year: the article was published in 1984 and not 1998. I also reformatted the article title. Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I fixed most of your nitpicks, although I still have a few to go. One should probably note, although, that this species doesn't have much published on it. It would be nice if you could review it again in one or two days. Again, thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) On the subject of not having somethings sourced from where they appear sourced (i.e. in the description section), it is because I am putting the refs that I use for most (but usually all) of the paragraph at the end. Also, for some measurements, I can't find the averages (as in the egg dimensions). I will try and improve it all I can. I'm glad for your thorough review, and thank you so much for spending the time to do this review. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 14:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • I've made some changes myself. Please have a look at the differences. I think that the article needs further copy editing. I'm not very skilled at this but will try to help.
  • "bulky cup nest is built in" - but the cited source, Dyrcz 2000, discusses the placement but doesn't mention the shape or the bulk of the nests.
  • Perhaps mention more clearly that during the breeding season the mangrove swallow mainly feeds within its own large territory - see HBW family - General habits
  • The word "usually" is repeated 18 times in this short article. (I've removed 3 occurrences) Try varying the vocabulary: normally, generally, typically etc.

- Aa77zz (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks! I corrected all of the nitpicks now besides the infobox image one. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all looks good now. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

RileyBugz, it looks like this is will be your first FA if successful? If so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use without close paraphrasing -- you can request this at the top of WT:FAC, or perhaps one of the reviewers above would like to undertake it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:20, 21 January 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/Mangrove_swallow/archive1&oldid=859660926"