Talk:Hooded pitohui

Untitled

"According to MSN encarta"  ?? That's pretty funny- but at least it is honest.

Fact check on the bird's diet

I altered the text of the article pertaining to the bird's diet. The article implied that the poisonous beetle is the only thing the Hooded Pitohui eats, which is false (see http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2001/2/intoxnewguineabirds.cfm).

Papers to include

• Mead, G. S. (1895). "Birds of New Guinea (Miscellaneous) (Continued)". The American Naturalist. 29 (343): 627–636. (Reference to distasteful nature being known to locals. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this as promised. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• Seems the footnotes could have citations.

• I wondered about that, I assume citation templates are used in the same way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• "as the junior synonym to Pitohui" Synonym of is the usual phrasing.

• Fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• "was once placed in the genus Pitohui with five other species" It is still placed in the genus, so isn't it better to say "five other species were also once placed in the genus"?

• clarified. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• You give scientific names in parenthesis after common names some places, could be consistent.

• Fixed I hope. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Still more needed throughout, but no big deal now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "the differences are very slight and are generally regarded as inseparable" Differences are inseperable? Or the subspecies?

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Why do you only mentioned the specific name at the very end of the taxonomy section? It could be mentioned in the very first sentence about its naming.

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Synonyms in the taxobox should have authorities.

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Why call the descriptive section "morphology", unlike pretty munch all other bird articles?

• I often use it as it covers external appearance and other aspects of their general physiology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Would physiology be a better name in this article? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, but physiology has more to do with behaviour and ecology than with physical features, no? FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• The description section also seems extremely short compared to most other bird articles?

• It is short but it's all I could find. It is not a bird prone to geographical or sexual variation and has very basic markings. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• The toxicity section seems ill placed with the descrition, would make more sense with behaviour/ecology. Even the current title, morphology, would imply a section specifically about physical features.

• As I noted above I use the description/morphology/anatomy/physiology. I have separated the physiological components of the toxicity from the evolutionary/ecological. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• It also seems a bit unusual that the ecology and behaviour sections are divided by the distribution section?

• I could move ecology down but I thought it flowed better since the ecology section was related to the preceding toxicity section. Happy to move it if you think its better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, in that case, I think the only way to solve all the above issues satisfactorily would be to have a more traditional description> distribution> behaviour> ecology> toxicity> strucure. I think it would make a more logical flow, especially since the toxicity is related to its diet, and not at all with its physical features. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I would object very strongly to that layout. Appearance and toxicity are functions of of their physiology. And you need to introduce toxicity before you talk about the ecological functions of the trait. Moving distribution between toxicity and ecology would be infinitely preferable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess it's a matter of taste, and will leave it at that. But if it is brought up by others during FAC, might be good to act upon it. In any case, the term "morphology" refers to the shape of something (not its function), so it might be better to have a "physiology" title to cover both description/morphology and toxicity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, to hysiology and description. Incidentally HBW, which we loosely based our article layouts on, uses "morphological aspects" for the whole realm covered by that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• The snake photo has quite a messy description template, could be cleaned up, so it doesn't look like it has no source.

• Replaced with image with clearer description template Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "didn't live as long" Contractions are discouraged in general.

• It's a dumb rule, but fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "were long thought to be similar due to being congeneric" I'm not sure what is meant by this. Sure it isn't the other way around, that they were considered congeneric because they were similar?

• Its circular. They were assumed to be congeneric because they were similar and they were assumed to be similar because they were congeneric. In this case we are interested in the logic this way around. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• What does Pitohui mean?

• Added. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "toxicity was not considered a trait observed in birds, at least not by the general zoology community" Quotes should have in-text attribution, though I'm not sure why this sentence cn't just be rewritten instead of quoted?

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "which can slur up or down and interspersed with pauses" Intersperse?

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "It also makes and a "tuk tuk w’oh tuw’uow” call" Mistake?

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "down downlurred whistled" Something wrong here?
• "isn't true" Contraction.

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "incubation period isn't known" Likewise.

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "young birds haven't developed" Likewise. Perhaps look if there are more I have missed.

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Young birds will make a threat display when approached in the nest, rising up and erecting its head feathers." You go from plural to singular.

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "most closely related variable pitohu" To the?

• Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• The intro needs a physical description.

• Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Seems everything has been addressed, so will now pass. Hope this hasn't seemed extra nitpicky, but hey, we shouldn't make the effectiveness of the bird article factory too suspicious... FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with thorough reviews. Ta :) Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The writing in this is so badly organized as to look like the typical WikiCup random assemblage of facts with single words changed to avoid charges of plagiarism. Most toxic of three species? How many species are there according to the taxonomy? "Vital organs?" The liver. It's specific which vital organs.

Why is this a "Good Article?" --2601:648:8503:4467:855B:48B5:C644:C7CB (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have issues, list them in the open FAC, not at a closed GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One of the most poisonous of 3

If it is one of the most poisonous of three species, does this mean 2 species are very poisonous and one is less? What does the source say? --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:67 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. Look, if there address only 3 known species with the toxin, those 3 species are three most toxic. They're also the least toxic. --2601:648:8503:4467:855B:48B5:C644:C7CB (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is this a GA?

The writing in this is so badly organized as to look like the typical WikiCup random assemblage of facts with single words changed to avoid charges of plagiarism. Most toxic of three species? How many species are there according to the taxonomy? "Vital organs?" The liver. It's specific which vital organs.

Why is this a "Good Article?" --2601:648:8503:4467:855B:48B5:C644:C7CB (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:56 (talk)

Your section here is very badly organised itself, I'm not even sure what issues you are referring to since you don't use direct quotes. Not sure where the term "vital organs" is used, for example. That said, I think the article could use a range map, as is present in all other bird FAs, whaddaya say, Sabine's Sunbird? Not sure why I or no one else didn't bring it up before. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Line about frogs that is maybe supposed to say birds?

A sentence in the "Toxicity" section reads "These frogs also eat ants that naturally contain formic acid, which they can then metabolise and sequester in their tissues." I think it is supposed to say birds, and I would correct it to say so, but there is no source provided for me to verify the intended meaning of the sentence. Kowalske (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)