Talk:Red-collared widowbird

Untitled

This article is well-written with a lot of information covering a range of topics, from mating systems to the specific morphology of the widowbird. The article was originally just one large chunk of text so I've broken it into generic sections, which led to the automatic creation of a table of contents. You can reorganize the paragraphs or put it into sub-sections in order to make the information clearer. Njoymusic2 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is as a whole well written. There are a few parts that need further clarification. The sentence: "Also, looking at body size and condition, this accounts for 55% of the variation in tail length" is confusing. I would recommend taking the part about variation in tail length completely but I think that should be the decision of the original author. The other part of the article that is confusing is the discussion of asymmetry. I couldn't tell whether it meant asymmetry in tail length or red pattern or whether it was something different. Again, this may be a little too much detail for a Wikipedia article. Gabriel.hassler (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

For this article, I made some slight alterations to the writing style, editing for clarity proper grammar. I noted and changed several typos, and I changed some sentences for better flow and clarity. I also edited some content for correctness/clarity. I italicized scientific names and marked where citations might be helpful. I changed the “Sexual Dimorphism” section to “Morphology.”

I rather enjoyed the article. I would suggest expanding on the “Morphology” section. It would also be beneficial to state who conducts the studies mentioned, especially in the “Plumage” section. I would suggest clarifying the concept of asymmetry, as this portion of the article is slightly hard to follow. Finally, I would include more photos.

As an aside, I would love if there was some discussion of how the Red-collared Widowbird differs from the Long-Tailed Widowbird. The photo currently on the article seems very similar to the other species and some of the facts seem to match the Long-tailed Widowbird. This might be a reason to include the names of researchers. --Cobiorower (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)cobiorower

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red-collared Widowbird/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MeegsC (talk · contribs) 15:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC) I'll have a closer look over the next few days, but here are a few initial comments:

• The lead needs to be expanded. It should be a summary of the article. See WP:LEAD for more information.
• Capitalize the bird's name consistently. Per WP:MOS, it's "Red-collared Widowbird".
• All metric measurements should also show imperial units. It's easiest to use the {{convert}} template. Check out Red Warbler, White Stork or others for an example.

I converted a couple of the measurements in the "Description" section, so you can see how to use the template. Here are the changes. I'll let you practice on the rest!  :) If you want to learn more, the templates instructions page is at Template:Convert. MeegsC (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are some [citation needed] tags that need to be referenced.
• What do the numbers in parentheses mean, next to some author names in the reference section?

It's the issue number of article.Samara levine (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. It's probably better to use one of the standard citation formats; there's a link right at the top of the edit box which will help you. I'll change one, so that you can see what I'm doing. The WP:CITET page a full explanation. MeegsC (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see you're actually using the citation templates, which is great. This shows the changes I've made to the first section (Description) to fix the author's names and the "date" problem. Each author should be listed separately; putting all three last names in one field and all three first names in another makes it hard to figure out which names go with which, as you can see if you look further down the same section! In addition, the "date" field isn't for the individual day of the month, but for something like "March 1960". I fixed one of those too, so that you can see what to do. I'll leave you to fix the rest of them. Citations are one of the hardest things to get to grips with in Wikipedia, but once you've figured them out, they're pretty easy. I've recently started putting all my references at the bottom of the article (see Chimney Swift for example) which makes it far easier for new editors to read the text without getting all hung up in the citations. Something to think about if you're just starting to expand an article, as it's easier to do when they're smaller!!  :) MeegsC (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm not quite sure what you mean by putting your references at the bottom of the article, but I think I adjusted the citations as needed! Samara levine (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Samara, where are you getting the date information you've included in the citations? For the second reference, for example, when I click on the DOI link, the page it takes me to shows me the date of January 2008. Where does the September 21, 2007 come from? MeegsC (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! On the actual article, September 21, 2007 was when the article first became available online. I wasn't sure what date to use. I believe January 2008 was the date of the journal. Should I change it to that date? Samara levine (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Samara. Yes, use the publication date for a printed journal. If it's only available online, then use the online date. MeegsC (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll go into more detail section by section once you've had a chance to address these more general issues, but it looks like you're off to a good start. I'm watch listing this page. Let me know if any of these comments need clarifying! MeegsC (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Meegs, it's been a couple of weeks now, and the last edit Samara has made on Wikipedia is the one on this page from December 20. You might want to think about wrapping up this review soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Given the lack of progress, I can't pass the article as GA; I'd currently rate it a C. The bones of a good article are here; hopefully Samara or others will continue to work on it and bring it up to GA standards in the future. MeegsC (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• This was one of about two dozen articles posted by students in a fall semester college course at Washington University which were submitted to GAN at the end of November as part of the class requirements. The last edit date I saw when I spot-checked about a third of them was December 20. I imagine they're all on vacation at the moment, and I have no idea whether any of the students will be back on their own now that the class has ended. If Samara comes back, I'm sure she could ask for assistance or get a peer review: from C class to GA is a big step, but having created a C-class article with good bones is nothing to sneeze at. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is another page I will return to soon to start editing! I apologize for the delay! Samara levine (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)