Talk:Resplendent quetzal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: VickKiang (talk · contribs) 07:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am VickKiang, and I will be reviewing this article. Many thanks for your time and help. VickKiang (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some parts need minor c/e, but is generally all right.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MoS (lede, layout, words to watch) are generally followed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	From what I can see, the article doesn't have OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Some sections are paraphrased, but is better now.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is suitably focused, detail is all right for WP standards.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	NPOV is followed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring present.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Lead/lede

- "The quetzal is an altitudinal migrant specie" should be "The quetzal is an altitudinal migrant species", see https://grammarist.com/usage/species/

-

Done

- Significant copyvio, see here for the Earwig detector. This needs to be fixed, I'll try to do it. VickKiang (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Already trimmed down to below 15%.SpaceEconomist192 ✐

Good, IMHO, 13% copyvio is still a bit worrying, I'd like to trim down the paraphrasing even more. VickKiang (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bellow 10%, violation unlikely it says. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 12:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

- Fix two citation needed tags.

-

Done

- Alter or rm ref 6- self-published and not an RS IMO.

-

Done

- Could there potentially be a note (Efn template) for this statement instead: "(it is sometimes spelled mocino, but "ñ" was formerly spelled "nn" in Spanish, so the spelling with "nn" is justified and in any case now official[5][6])"4

-

Done

- Change "his own specie" to "his own species".

-

Done

- In the taxonomy section, IMO there should be info on the bird's close relationship with the Crested Quetzal. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, in its adaptation of Handbook of Birds, noted that "Resplendent Quetzal as a "very near relative of the Crested Quetzal [Pharomachrus antisianus]." Some sources consider the Crested Quetzal to be a race of the Resplendent Quetzal (e.g. Peters 1945), or that the two form a superspecies." This could also be found via its source based on several papers such as Johnsgard (2000). Please see link here, which is also the article's fifteenth ref (it requires a subscription to view the content, so if you can't access it please let me know, thanks): https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/resque1/cur/systematics

- I do not have a subscription. And the old version which I used as the fifteenth source does not mention any of this. Perhaps you can transclude the paragraph you're referring to my sandbox.

- I have transcluded the content. VickKiang (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-

Done

- Is the third source from Encyclopaedia Britannica, as it reads "Quetzal. 1890. In: Encyclopædia Britannica a dictionary of arts, sciences, and general literature. Chicago: R. S. Peale & Co. p. 179-180"? If so, it is not an RS according to RSP (see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Encyclopaedia_Britannica); please find a better source. Thanks.

- After searching through Google Books and Google Scholar I could not find another source stating that, but a lot of research papers use solely quetzal to refer to the resplendent quetzal. The best alternative I could arrange was the quetzal definition in the Collins and Merriam-Webster dictionaries (1, 2). Regarding the RSP link, it says that the reliableness of Britannica is debatable, so since the statement its supporting is just general information I would let it pass. But you're the reviewer so it's your call, if you want me to remove the phrase I will.

- Not sure those helps, but those refs could also be used in addition, as it also refers to a Euptilotis as a quetzal (http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/Eared-Quetzal). Birds of the World also stated that "Phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequence data, from mitochondrial and nuclear genes, consistently position the monotypic genus Euptilotis as sister to the "true" queztals, Pharomachrus (Espinosa de los Monteros 1998, Moyle 2005, Quintero and Espinosa de los Monteros 2011). The relationship of quetzals (Euptilotis + Pharomachrus) within Trogoniformes is unresolved." I have added those sources as well, but am unsure whether the former is helpful, so you can rm that if you want. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-

Done

- Capitalise the first letter of the first word in the notes section ("it is sometimes spelled mocino, but "ñ" was formerly spelled "nn" in Spanish, so the spelling with "nn" is justified and in any case now official.") Also, a minor (and optional) suggestion is to possibly reword "in any case now official".

-

Done

Description

- Please improve ref 15 if possible, it seems to be an unreliable blog.

-

Done

- In ref 13, where does it state that "The nominate subspecies weighs about 210 g (7.4 oz)"? In the results section, it only says:

"The width of the uppertail-coverts of P. m. mocinno measured 39–79 mm (median: 51 mm, mean: 53.2 ± 9.2 mm, n = 46) and of P. m. costaricensis 26–49 mm (median: 39 mm, mean: 37.7 ± 4.8 mm, n = 27). The mean values were significantly different (Randomisation Test: p <0.0000005) (Fig. 2).

The length of the longest uppertail-covert in P. m. mocinno measured 310–1005 mm (median: 750 mm, mean: 722 ± 164 mm, n = 46), and in P. m. costaricensis 320–860 mm (median: 630 mm, mean: 614 ± 123 mm, n = 27). The mean values were significantly different (Randomisation Test: p <0.005)."

-

Done

- Change the average to the median in those sentences:

"the tail streamers measure between 31 cm (12 in) and 100.5 cm (39.6 in), with the average being 75 cm (30 in) for males"

"The tail plumes are shorter and narrower, measuring between 32 cm (13 in) and 86 cm (34 in), with the average being 63 cm (25 in)"

This is due to that the ref refers to the median as 63cm, however, the average is the mean, and is not the same with the median. VickKiang (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I dont understand this, maybe nominator will come back. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- To clarify, the mean is the average of a data set (i.e., given 1, 1, 3, and 5, the mean is the sum of the numbers, 10, divided by how many numbers there is, 4, giving 2.5). But the median is the middle number, in the case of 1, 1, 3, and 5, both 1 and 3 are the middle numbers, so the median is the mean of those two, hence 2. In the ref, the stats of 75cm and 63cm are the medians, not the averages, which are 722 ± 164 mm and 614 ± 123 mm. See here: https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-british-ornithologists-club/volume-137/issue-4/bboc.v137i4.2017.a6/Morphometric-differentiation-between-subspecies-of-Resplendent-Quetzal-Pharomachrus-mocinno-mocinno/10.25226/bboc.v137i4.2017.a6.full. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-

Done

Distribution and habitat

- Better source is needed still for ref 16 (blog?).

-

Done

- @SpaceEconomist192: Minor comment on distribution: The article says that "This species lives among lush vegetation, in very moist rainforests in high elevations (900-3200m)." The ref backing it up (IUCN) is credible, but IMO there could be a note as there is variation among the refs. Birds of the World cites 1000 to 3000m ("The subspecies costaricensis inhabits Costa Rica and the western highlands of Panama. It ranges from 1,000-3,300 meters in elevation."), whereas the article Conservation Priorities for Resplendent Quetzals Based on Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA Control-Region Sequences cites "These forests, ranging from 1300 to 3000 m elevation, represent the breeding habitats for this species". Again, this is a very minor suggestion, so thanks.

-

Done

Behaviour (feeding)

- IMO possibly replace "at least 41" with "41-43" as per Birds of the World (ref 23).

-

Done

- The cited ref stated that:

"Adults fed on fruits of 15 plant species, six of which (40%) are members of the family Lauraceae; 63 percent of the fruit items consumed were from these species. Other fruit items consumed were from species belong to the families Theaceae (8.3%) and, with 4.2 percent each: Myrsinaceae, Araliaceae, Verbenaceae, Solanaceae, Myrtaceae, Melasomataccae, Moraceae and Clusiaceae."

But the article stated that:

"Particularly important are wild avocados and other fruit of the laurel family, which the birds swallow whole before regurgitating the pits, which helps to disperse these trees."

As I only have the abstract, I couldn't see where it specifically points out that the family "Lauraceae" just refers to wild avocados. If possible, could you give me the full transcript (otherwise IMO this could be changed)? Many thanks!

- The citation for that is actually the 24th, I'm going to cite it at the end of both phrases, to avoid future confusion. Table 3. states the Persea vesticulata (avocado) and the Symplococarpon purpusii have the highest percentage (I've added the latter to the article).

Behaviour (Breeding)

- @SpaceEconomist192: Ref 29 is an RS from National Geographic, but IMO could there be a better peer reviewers journal if possible?

-

Done

Many thanks, if you could first address the copyvios that would be great, and the clarification needed tags. I've also marked some suggestions as optional, these don't matter much with the GA review, IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, already addressed the clarification needed tags! SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 14:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Many thanks for your help! Also, the minor copyvios are major issues, IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Should the heights of the nest stubs and holes of the respeledent quetzal be mentioned (per ref 14, Pg 5, describing these to be 41 and 31 feet)?

-

Done

- Perhaps the sizes of the eggs (a mean of 38.9 mm x 32.4 mm per Birds of the World) should be mentioned.

-

Done

- I find the nest failure to be "around 70 percent" to be confusing. Per here and the cited results form this paper, it's 67-78%, so maybe replace 70% with 67-78%. VickKiang (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-

Done

- Many thanks! Just lots of more optional suggestions left now, if replied I'll pass this GA soon. VickKiang 03:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Optional suggestion: Per ref [1], [the] female brought more fruits. Wheelwright also observed shorter return times for parents providing fruits than animal items. Yet, even late in the nestling period, over half of the items give to the nestling were insects or lizards. Maybe the greater provision of fruits and the insects being the primary/main feeding food could be mentioned and reworded.

- It's already mentioned that the primary food of the chicks is fruits and insects. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation status

- The number of species is 20,000-49,999 per ref 1, not 20,000-49,000. I changed this, see edit summary. VickKiang (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- There could be mention that the population is differing in subspecies, such as It is thought that some subpopulations may be increasing or at least stable whilst others are declining (S. Renner in litt. 2016). Note, the source is also from ref 1, but the cited ref within IUCN might be more detailed.

-

Done

- This ref is RS but is dated from 2003, wondering there might be a newer update on conservation data?

~~- Copyvio: See here, [for] this reason, it is a traditional symbol of liberty. No more other copyvios.~~

www.deviantart.com is not a reliable source and it was not used to retract information, those specific excerpts were already on the article a long time ago so most likely it was www.deviantart.com who copied Wikipedia and not the other way around. SpaceEconomist192 ✐

My mistake, striken, didn't see it's also a circular source, oops... VickKiang (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Optional (and minor) suggestion irrelevant to GA (it only needs to be broad in coverage, not comprehensive): that there could be more info on cloud forests, per the ref provided, Cloud forests are among the most threatened ecosystems in the world, mainly due to the demographic explosion, expansion of the agricultural frontier, and the lack of fire control (LaBastille and Allen 1969; Cruz and Erazo 1977; LaBastille and Pool 1978; Solórzano et al. 2003; Renner and Markussen 2005; Toledo-Aceves et al. 2011). Considering that this is the introducting content for the journal with multiple refs cited, this could be included IMO, but is totally optional.

Others

- Optional: Ref 14 mentions some movement observations from Page 4 to 5. Could some info be briefly covered in article? Many thanks!

In Culture

- Unfortunately I don't have access to ref 34, could you transclude it?

- The text on WP is a bit similar and might be paraphrased compared to the original. The ref states: [on] the first strike Tecún Umán, on foot, managed to disable Pedro de Alvarado’s horse. In the WP article, the sentence is also similar, Tecún, equipped with merely an arrow and bow, nevertheless managed to disable Alvarado's horse on the first strike. Maybe this could be tweaked slightly, but is optional.

-

Done

- I find the paraphrasing here to be extremely close, it needs to be changed, this is the ref's description: ...has been silent ever since; it will sing once again only when the land is truly free. Compared this to WP's one: Additionally, from that day on, the quetzal, which sang beautifully before the Spanish conquest, has been silent ever since; it will sing once again only when the land is truly free. The paraphrasing might be unintentional, but is way too close and needs improvement. VickKiang (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-

Done

Other C/e and MoS adherence

- Personally, with the above suggestions done, the reviewing is almost done, but I do need to fact-check it again, I did an optional c/e (mostly minor and optional). There are a lot of minor comma preferences issues, but I did a couple, please change if necessary, as GA don't need to have a brilliant flow or adhere with all of the MoS guidelines. VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- In the conservation section, it states that Until recently, it was thought that the resplendent quetzal could not be bred or held for a long time in... But GAs should follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which frowns upon recently: Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By July 2022 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped" but the first sentence retains its meaning as time passes. And recently type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: Was it in the last week? Month? Year? I find this vague, please reword it. Same with this: [the] current population trend of the resplendent quetzal is decreasing. But the latter one is minor compared to the first. The same applies for this: However, recent scientific discoveries... I've added clarification needed and when tags, please improve. Many thanks!

-

Done

- Optional Should these animals in the lede be linked: ...insects, lizards, frogs and snails? Many thanks!

-

Done

VickKiang (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Possible copyvio here. Please check the repeated phrases and paraphrasing (lives among lush vegetation, prefers to inhabit decaying trees, stumps...) VickKiang (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-

Done

Many thanks, do you think revdeling is needed? Note this: [the] bright colors of the quetzal are disguised by their natural habitat in the rainforest is still very similar and is still closely paraphrasing, perhaps another reword? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-

Done

- This line is problematic: it will sing anew solely when the land is utterly liberated. Utterly seems to be a word on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. After these are done, I'll pass this GA. VickKiang 03:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-

Done

Images Check

Images seem to be all right. VickKiang (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm on vacations right now but I will make all the changes after it. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 22:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! IMO if these issues are addressed the article is close to GA, but I think the close paraphrasing is probably the main problem. VickKiang (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

This is totally optional, but do the sources section have some info not covered in the in-line refs? If so, could they be moved there? VickKiang (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good now. Passing. VickKiang 22:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, after five months we did it! Sorry for my inactivity. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 07:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]