Talk:Red wattlebird/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. I assume you are aiming at FAC? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you assume correctly. Another critter that is in my garden. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of honeyeater in the opening lines.

one removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the belly really reveal a yellow patch? It sports or features it, perhaps? Or is this not what is meant in the first paragraph of the lead?

no, rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"a diminutive of caro, carnis" Both? I confess I'm struggling a little with these lines.

removed second bit as a bit tangential Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The description section is a little jargon heavy: crown, forecrown, hindcrown, nape, "anterior ear coverts", "capillary action", "primary flight feathers" and especially "remiges and retrices" jump out. I follow (with the exception of "remiges and retrices") but I'm guessing I know a bit more about birds than most readers.

I have bluelinked or explained each Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly: "and there are distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck dangling from the lower rear corner of ear-coverts as well as a sliver of pink bare skin at the lower border of the white facial marking." Tricky!

I split the sentence and tried to make it plainer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"or when declaring their territory against other birds" Does one declare territory against another?

preposition changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "staccato call"?

a call where there are spaces between the notes - I linked it to staccato. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"in scrub, heath, or margins of wet sclerophyll forest. It is rarely found in mature pine plantations" A little jargon-y, again; also, beware repetition of "area" in the paragraph.

I removed an area - and linked jargon words, "shrubland" is a more accessible word than "scrub" so replaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes scuffling with members of the same species or other large honeyeaters in the air." Incomplete sentence. More generally, there's a bit of jumping between the singular "it" and apparently plural "they" in the opening paragraphs of "Behaviour".

sentence tweaked. singularized...except the mobbing bit as it is about a group Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"dominant display where a red wattlebird" How about wherein or in which?

changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"a horizontal appeasement posture side on to the" Should that be side-on? (Also, there's another "where" which I think could better be "wherein" or "in which".)

both done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"As well as smaller bird species, red wattlebirds can mob and chase larger species such as the Australian magpie (Cracticus tibicen), butcherbirds and currawongs, black-faced cuckooshrike (Coracina novaehollandiae) , olive-backed oriole (Oriolus sagittatus), crows and ravens, laughing kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae) and even small raptors like the collared sparrowhawk (Accipiter cirrocephalus).[38]" You seem to shift between plurals and singulars in that list.

this bit I am undecided as mobbing requires multiple birds. I thought it souded odd in singular...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: "the Australian magpie (Cracticus tibicen), butcherbirds and currawongs, [the] black-faced cuckooshrike (Coracina novaehollandiae) , [the] olive-backed oriole (Oriolus sagittatus), crows and ravens, [the] laughing kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae) and even small raptors like the collared sparrowhawk (Accipiter cirrocephalus).[38]" Or am I misunderstanding? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok, definite articles added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still not what I was getting at; my concern was that some items in the list were plural ("raptors", "crows") while some were singular ("magpie", "oriole"). I see now (I think) that the difference is names of individual species and names referring to several species, but I did think it jarring; perhaps something to look at as you tighten the prose for FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I agree. I was scratching my head thinking of ways around this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"often preferring plants with easy access to their quarry rather than those with tubular flowers." I don't follow.

Red wattlebirds prefer flowers where the nectar is easily accessible rather than at the end of a tube (is the point I am trying to make) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was quarry which threw me. The new sentence is somewhat clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Fieldwork in Melbourne showed that red wattlebirds foraged much more often in native than exotic plants.[43] The introduced coral tree (Erythrina) is popular.[34]" Are these sentences related? It's a bit "list of facts".

I added contrastive as this is an unusually popular nonnative flower Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Interactions with humans" be better?

In two minds - I thought "Interactions with people" was plainer and didn't lose any meaning...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your call, I suppose. I think "humans" is plainer, personally, and I think that's more common on Wikipedia, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some "looking towards FAC" comments; feel free to ignore for now:

I think the lead is a little short for an article of this length.

expanded a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider a table for the subspecies, especially if you could find an image for each

that could be tricky... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I think you could look into images; the description section is surprisingly unillustrated! There are plenty of nice enough pictures on Commons. Perhaps File:Red Wattlebird Nov09.jpg, which is great would be nice replacement for the current feeding picture, for example.

that image is great, espeicially as it has the bird with pollen on its face. However, it is an exotic plant and a tubular flowered on to boot, which are supposedly unpopular, and I can't ID the flowers (I suspect it is a cactus/succulent). Despite all that, I might use it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Foraging takes place mostly in trees, in particular climbing along branches (rather than the trunk) and at flower heads, probing flowers with their bills." This doesn't quite read right.

the subjects were misaligned - now changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feeding section has a "list of observations" quality, which probably doesn't match up with the expectations of a featured article.

point taken. will try to rejig this a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "parasites" section is a bit lonely; perhaps you could include some discussion of predators and have a "predators and parasites" subsection in a renamed "behaviour and ecology" section?

no easy fix here. found another parasite.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's jumping out from a first reading. I'll be back to look more closely at sourcing and images! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are looking good. I'm happy with the images and sources for GA purposes, but I'd like to have another go through before promoting. I'll hopefully get to that in the next few days. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second read through

I'm happy that this comfortably meets the GA criteria, so I am happy to promote. Here are some thoughts for going forward:

Perhaps something about human interactions could be added to the lead?
"the pair splitting from the ancestor of the regent honeyeater—their next closest relative." Do we have an indication of when the split took place?
"capillary action" still jumps out at me
I think the paragraph beginning "Immature red wattlebirds" could do with some attention.
The paragraph beginning "As well as smaller bird species": I actually think it reads quite well, now. I withdraw my worries!
"The red wattlebird seeks out yellow flower heads of holly-leaved banksia (Banksia ilicifolia), which have much higher nectar content than the more mature red flower heads." This seems trivial.
I wonder if there are any categories that would be appropriate given that the bird has been hunted for flesh/recreation and given that it is currently kept in aviaries?
Again: I'd consider merging parasites and (nest) predators into one section, but if you're not convinced, go with your preference.

Pleasure working with you, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]