Talk:Tufted tit-tyrant

Not A. parulus

The link proposed with an image misleads to a bird that, pretty as it is, is not the expected tufted tit-tyrant Anairetes parulus. --Lupo Manaro (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Keilana (talk · contribs) 21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rufous-crowned Sparrow! I have a few things I'd like addressed before I'm willing to pass this article. For your convenience, I organized them by section of the GA criteria, then by section of the article. Please feel free to poke me on my talk page if I don't respond fast enough to something here. Also, I'm not perfect (and I did the review on paper off an iPod), so if I suggest something stupid or don't make sense, let me know. Thanks for writing an awesome article! :)

Criterion 1a

In general, your prose is a little choppy and sometimes clunky. Here are some more specific suggestions.

Lead

• "with its range stretching" is redundant, you can remove "with".
• The sentence "This species is very closely related to the Juan Fernandez Tit-Tyrant." is awkwardly placed and abrupt.
• "This tit-tyrant is very" - repetitive in the context of your other sentences and a bit clunky.
• "The back" should be "its back"
• Perhaps you could merge the sentences about its back and its throat/breast? The sentence structure starts to get monotonic at this point.
• "either on or from" is redundant; remove "either".

Taxonomy

• Could you wikilink Tyrannidae in the 1st sentence?

Tyrant flycatcher comes first and links to the same page. It looks odd, but either way one wikilinkable term gets left out. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, didn't catch that. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Spitzitomis was eventually abolished" - is "abolished" the best word choice there? (i.e. was the category stricken by an international consortium/major ornithological group, or did it just fade from use?)

Abolished should be the best term to use; while specifics on this switch are regrettably difficult to find, a genus shouldn't fade from use. Someone abolished Spitzitornis, just not sure who. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. (Mysterious genus-abolishing? Sounds like an ornithological cabal to me...) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Description

• "The iris of the bird" is clunky, could change to something like "the bird's iris is"
• Merge the sentences about its belly and its legs to help the flow, maybe change to something like "becomes more worn; its legs are black."
• "upperparts" should be "upper parts", unless it's a specific ornithological term that I don't know about :)

Not sure about "specific ornithological term", but all my bird references seem to use it as one word. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I trust the references over my gut instinct. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• "broader and more extensive...and more distinct and broader" - either say "more extensive and broader...and more distinct and broader" or "broader and more extensive...and broader and more distinct" so the structures are parallel.

Distribution and Habitat

• "This bird" change to "Tufted Tit-Tyrant", don't go too long without specifying which bird you're talking about.
• Wikilink "habitat generalist"

Behavior

• Wikilink "displacement behavior"
• "flaring the wings" should be "wing flaring" for parallelism

Diet

• "It is also known to, in rare circumstances, eat seeds" - move "in rare circumstances" to the end
• "thorn tailed Rayadito and flocks of thirty" - put a semicolon after "Rayadito" and remove "and"
• Merge the sentences starting with "A tit-tyrant tends to..." and "It frequently flicks..."
• Try switching the last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph; I think it'd read more smoothly.
• Change "this species' " to "its primary" and "which makes" to "making them"
• saying "prevalent" is not really enough explanation on its own, a more specific wording would be "prevalent hunting strategy observed"
• Wikilink "hover gleaning"
• "in which the tit-tyrant flies upwards from its perch to grab prey from the vegetation while the bird hovers in the air" - this is unclear.
• "cooperatively flycatch" should be "flycatch cooperatively"

Reproduction

• "The Tufted Tit-tyrant is aggressive during the breeding season" - is the male, female, or both aggressive? Please specify.
• "The nest" could be "The Tufted Tit-Tyrant's nest"
• "often beside a stream, clearings, or a path" should be "often beside a stream, clearing, or path."
• tack the next sentence on, so it becomes "often beside a stream, clearing, or path, and is frequently well hidden".
• You could combine the 2 sentences about the cup of the nest.
• "these eggs" should be "the eggs"

Conservation

• "This species" should be specific (e.g. "The Tufted Tit-Tyrant" or the scientific name)

Criterion 1b

This is good, no problems.

Criterion 2

The references are good and the inline citations are pretty much all there; however, the section with your bibliography is broken. The formatting got screwed up such that part of one citation is missing and another is bolded strangely.

Also, a question: Does the Engilis citation (#8) at the end of the sentence "They then raise their crest..." cover the whole description of territorial behavior? The same question applies to the description of hunting strategies. If it does cover that whole bit, a cite at the end of the 2nd hunting strategy description would be nice.

I found the strange bolding but am not certain which ref has a missing part of a citation. Could you specify? And, other than these two items, is the References section fine?

The answer to both questions is yes, and an extra ref was added. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's totally fixed now. I think the two issues were linked somehow. The References section looks great now! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Criterion 3

As far as I can tell, this is quite complete. Nice job!

Criterion 4

It's kinda hard to be POV about birds.

Criterion 5

Stable. No problems I could see.

Criterion 6

Images used are free use (and incidentally, very cute :) ). However, I'm not quite sure how the Porliesa chilensis image is relevant except for being a general habitat image; is there an image of something mentioned in the article available? If not, it's no big deal.

It was the best general habitat picture I could find. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Then it's totally fine. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Overall, you did an excellent job...I apologize for being SO nitpicky! Thanks for reading through all that. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review Keilana. I've implemented most of your suggestions; those that I had problems with have specific replies after them. Thanks again. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll get to those in a bit and then give the article a read through. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm passing the nomination now, congratulations! Great work; I'm totally impressed. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for undergoing the review and for your helpful suggestions. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for being both an excellent editor and a receptive one. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)