Talk:Scaly-breasted munia

Wikipedia Ambassador Program 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.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

My evaluation of this article for Bio372

The article on the Spice Finch looks like a good start towards a decent article. It is missing a taxonomy section, as well as a culture or human relation section. The behavior section can be expanded upon and split into subgroups of mating, feeding, and survival. The article mentions that many experiments have been performed on the birds, including observing that the foraging birds may feed actively on the substrate or pick grain dropped on the ground and these strategies may be chosen according to the situation, which could be expanded upon. More specifically, the discussion of producers and scroungers could be incorporated into that section. The experiments of Kieron Mottley and Luc-Alain Giraldeau could be referenced in order to write about the predicted stable equilibrium frequency with producers and scroungers doing equally well. A model graph of how the situation appears could be included. The writing is clear and neutral. The article mentions that the bird is gregarious and doesn’t give evidence why. Looking at the Talk page, it only shows that wikiprojects that it is affiliated with. Looking at the history page, it was created in 2004 which is a lot earlier than the other articles I have looked at, but is not as high of quality as others that got started later. Once again the revisions show just a slow accumulation of minor revisions has led it to how it looks currently. Zhangt2413 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits on 10-14-12

Hi, all. Good work on the article! It looks like a lot of text has been added for the behavior section. I added a few edits related to readability and formatting. I split the block of text on feeding behaviors into smaller sections to focus on the particular concepts or behaviors described. Also, where needed, I added hyperlinks to clarify scientific terms used. Good work! GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments on article

Hi Tony, overall the article looks great! I reworded the Sociality section because the use of “sometimes” was a bit redundant. Additionally, I added a hyperlink to the communal roosting page. For Feeding-related behaviors, I added a hyperlink to Munia, but other than that it looks great! For group living tradeoffs, I changed the wording of some of the sentences to improve clarity. Overall, however, I thought this section was particularly strong. I really appreciated the way you drew on a lot of different studies to prove a really strong point. There were some minor grammatical adjustments I made to the Foraging: two models, specialized foraging sections, and evolutionary stable strategies and tactics sections. In the breeding section, I adjusted a misbehaving hyperlink. This article would benefit from additional information on taxonomy, its role in culture, and its conservation status. Samara levine (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Evaluation

For this article, I made some slight alterations to the writing style, editing for clarity proper grammar. I corrected some run-on sentences and added some missing words. Some sentences were improperly structured and difficult to read, so I corrected these. I also fixed some of the headings, and indicated some places where a citation might be necessary.

In regards to behavior, I was wondering what significance tail flicking has. If it is significant to their behavior, I would suggest more elaboration on the subject. While reading it over I just changed some grammar and altered a couple sentences to improve the flow. I would also suggest adding more information about the bird that isn't behavior. This could give the article greater relevance to the reader. Great article

Jeremy.winkler (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

--Cobiorower (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC) cobiorower

This is a great overall article. I feel that you cover the material pretty in-depth.

Nice job with the article! You clearly did a ton of research and discusses a lot of interesting Munia behavior. For my peer review I really did not do much--I made a couple of minor revisions and broke up some paragraphs into smaller sections to make them easier to read. If you want to continue with this article, I would suggest that you start expanding other aspects of the article outside of "Foraging". Katheefwah (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have much to fix since there were so many editors before me. I made some minor grammar changes. I think the main thing to focus on is that you have a lot of subsections, more than usual pages. It seems like you made a section for each paper that you cited. Instead, you could try finding related ideas and putting them under maybe 2-3 bigger headings. I think it would make the article less choppy and more cohesive. Overall, great job. Katims90 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scaly-breasted Munia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Whew, there is a backlog in the Biology and medicine part of GAN. I shall help here, anyway, I like bird articles! My comments:

Hi Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words}, sorry for the delay in replying to your GAN comments. I will try and get to as many of your notes as possible today, then continue editing in the coming week or so. Zhangt2413 should be helping out as well, we are editing Wiki pages as part of a class. Thank you for your patience! Nsavalia23 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've started making a few of the edits suggested above, but much more is forthcoming. The lead will be adjusted as per your suggestions (and including IUCN info.), the format you recommend looks promising so I will compile the details and add soon. We still need to create a Taxonomy section, in which a Subspecies sub-section will be included, and this will be added as well. Description will be expanded (to include lifespan, etc.). Also, the behavior section needs work: both sourcing (some additional sourced information, too), and trimming of foraging section. Zhangt2413 and I will get to this as soon as we can! Thanks for your suggestions and apologies for taking so long, I have been quite tied up elsewhere. Let us know if there are other things we should worry about as well. (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead (and a few suggestions) ✓ Pass

• Lead should be a mini-article. I think you must develop the lead in a style I think is best: make 3 paragraphs- the first paragraph for describing its name, taxonomy and description; second one to describe its diet, sociability and natural habitat (not range); and the third and last paragraph to describe its range, conservation measures (if any) and miscellaneous details.

Lead section has been expanded in a format loosely based on what you mention here. Let me know if you think this needs additional work.

Good work, I have formatted it and kept the most notable details in the lead. You had cited the lead at places; well, you need not cite things in lead if they are already cited in the article. Considering this, I removed those citations. Rest is well and I'm satisfied. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Overall, I think you have forgot to use images after some of the article. Why, you haven't even used a range map, which is available, in the infobox.

Just added some relevant pictures across the page and a range map from Wikimedia Commons. Let me know if these look okay.

They do look fine, just arrange the last img so that it does not push the "References" section to left. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.

• In GAs, there should be a Taxonomy section. Say here the bird's binomial authority, how it came to be and its nomenclature. Tell what its genus and species name are.

Taxonomy section was created. Let me know if this is sufficient.

Well, I have rewritten the subspecies part. But link the names of the binomial authorities. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out there, the binomial authorities with existing pages I found have been linked.

Description ✓ Pass

• Convert template for 11-12 cm and 12-16 g.

Converted!

I can't see where you have. See Template:Convert. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Whew, must have misunderstood you the first time. I believe it is fixed now.

• I think you should rather say immature specimen in the img caption.

Caption fixed.

• You have a lot of info about subspecies here, use all this in Taxonomy section. Make a Subspecies subsection there, and mention these 11 ssps. pointwise there (don't forget to mention their binomial authorities and ranges).

Taxonomy sub-section has been made listing the subspecies.

• Could you add more data, such as of its lifespan? This important section looks small.

Lifespan added.

• In my view, I think you should say "Munia" uniformly everywhere to refer to this bird throughout the article. For example, you say Spice finches have a typical life expectancy of 6 to 8 years. I don't know if there are many instances, I just notified it. You see, many names might confuse the reader. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Point well taken- I think I have now changed all the instances of alternate name use.

Habitat and distribution ✓ Pass

• Place this section after Behavior part, this seems to break the flow.

Done!

• Use commas and convert templates, please.

Added templates to the altitudes and commas to the section. Let me know if you think more of the latter are needed.

But you still haven't used convert templates here. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Like above, I think this should be fixed now - converted to miles.

• What is the reference for their presence in Hawaii and Australia?

Australian population in Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2009 and Hawaiian population from Moulton et al. 1992; these are now added in the text.

• In Oahu, Hawaii, they compete for habitats with Lonchura malacca... Better mention the common name of this species.

Got it, added it in.

Behaviour and ecology ✓ Pass

• First paragraph in Sociality is unsourced.

Added in sources from Restall's "Munias and Mannikins" & Baptista et al. 1999

• Is the whole Sociality section based on ref 12? I think you should add at least one more ref.

Restall & Baptista et al. were added into the section

• Like some other Munias, they may also feed on algae. needs reference.

Done!

• Foraging section seems a bit too big. How about combining sentences and using the most relevant information? I am afraid you seem to be inclined at one point of explaining theories and all, which is not proper. I mean to say that summarise all the points and have only one or two subsections. If you fail to do this, I think you need to make this a whole section of its own.

So I've trimmed parts of the Foraging section, but as you mention it is much too long to stay within behavior & ecology. I moved it to its own section with edits removing many experimental details and such. I can keep trimming down, but many of the models and behaviors have heavy emphasis in the literature as a hallmark for the species. For now, I have left much of that information in the article.

OK, no need to trim any more. It is well and fine if it is split into another section. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• ...the male bends towards the female and wipe its bill. Wipes its bill.

Got it!

• Parts of the first paragraph are unsourced.

First breeding paragraph was split up and references were added in.

• First para. in "Foraging models" is unsourced.

Applicable sources added in.

• You should mention in "Breeding" the age the males and females reach sexual maturity at. But the line Laboratory studies have found that long day illumination and high humidity trigger gonadal growth seems to say that sexual maturity is dependent on these two factors long day illumination and high humidity. What do you say?

I've found some variable information, breeders appear to indicate rapid maturity while other sources have it taking longer in the wild because environmental factors shown by that laboratory study. I wasn't able to confirm all of the information in books/academic articles, so I am unsure on the sources but I think the information looks reliable. Let me know if I should keep digging.

OK, we shall depend on whatever reliable info available. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Status and Conservation ✓ Pass

• I don't think the 'C' in the title needs capital.

Fixed.

• You must mention that it is classifies as of 'Least Concern' by the IUCN. Also in the lead. There must be a lot of data in the IUCN source, use it.

IUCN information added to section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsavalia23 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Image captions which are not full sentences (almost all captions here) must not end with full stops.

Captions have been changed, either to full sentence format or full-stops were taken out.

This is it for now. I await your replies. This article is nice, cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I have replied to your comments, and have stroke through the resolved issues. So go on working with the others. I see you are having trouble using convert templates, see Template:Convert. Looks a GA to me ! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf, a few more comments have been addressed. Apologies for the long delay, examinations have eaten me up the last week. Behavior/lead and conservation sections will be edited tonight, and all review comments should be completely addressed at that point. Thanks for your patience. Nsavalia23 (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Great goings-on! You have much improved the article now. We are even done with one section! Good work ! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Here are all the responses I have come up with so far. Again, thank you for your patience, advice and help in improving this article. Let me know if there are any other fixes needed. I look forward to your comments! Nsavalia23 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have stroke through a great deal, much work done. I noticed some issues still, though not big, and have added them to their sections. See the issues not stroke through. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for the additional comments, above are my next few fixes and how I addressed them. Look forward to your response. We are getting close! Nsavalia23 (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Y Well, I think we are done here. In my view this article is now perfect for GA status. I promote it. Congrats! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)