Talk:White-naped xenopsaris/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Seems like a worthy topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The white-naped xenopsaris (Xenopsaris albinucha) is a species of suboscine bird in the family Tityridae. It is the only species in the genus Xenopsaris. The species is also known as the reed becard and white-naped becard." How about "The white-naped xenopsaris ('Xenopsaris albinucha'), also known as the reed becard and white-naped becard, is a species of suboscine bird in the family Tityridae native to South America. It is the only species in the genus Xenopsaris."

Done.

"They were thought to be members of either" They is ambiguous, here.

Fixed

Personally, I'd appreciate in-text mentions of the authorities who described and reclassified the species. (I see now that it comes further down; would it not make more sense to provide the information in chronological order?)

Done, agreed it looks better

"A 2007 study of mitochondrial DNA confirmed the white-naped xenopsaris' place in the Tityridae, and its close relationship to both Pachyramphus and the genus Tityra, and slightly more distantly related to the Iodopleura (the purpletufts), although further studies are needed to understand the complete relationship between the four genera." This doesn't quite work.

fixed hopefully

Not a big deal at all, but I'd be inclined to move habitat and distribution below description.

Moved.

Am I right in saying that a "discontinuous distribution" is the same as a disjunct distribution? If so, a link to disjunct distribution would be helpful!

Same thing, used your term and linked

I note that you refer to the subspecies as a "race"; given that "race" is sometimes used in a technical sense, this could be misleading.

Fixed.

"The species is generally resident across its range, but sightings of solitary and silent birds have suggested that the species may be migratory in Bolivia[2] and Brazil.[10]" How so?

The source does not explicitly say, but its because they are unpaired and non-territorial. Not synthesis to say that is it?

Perhaps this could be explained in brackets or a footnote. I note your synthesis worries; don't add anything if you're not keen. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "wing chord"?

defined and linked

"Juvenile birds resemble adults but have greyish napes, more chestnut in the crown,[2] the back, rump and primaries are scalloped with ochraceous, and secondaries and rectricies marginated with white." Could this be rephrased?

Had a go

Is "trill" jargon?

I'd say no, its a fairly common musical term I think, but I linked.

"They is typically hunt singly or in pairs, breeding pairs are often observed well apart." Three things: "They is" doesn't work, the "they" is ambiguous (you've just mentioned chicks; presumably that's not what you're referring to) and it's not clear what the two parts of the sentence have to do with each other.

I've tried rewording, good?

Pausing for now- please check my edits so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your c/edits and comments, looking better already. I've addressed everything above I hope, with one question for further thoughts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, back:

"a few cm of the bird" Perhaps this could be spelt out?

done

Would "conservation status" be preferable to merely "status"?

done

Sources look good. I'm not going to quibble about formatting at GAC, but could you confirm that Peru Aves is definitely a good source?

It's fine, but replaced with another link to HBW Alive. Not certain I got the page name exactly right.

I'll take a look at your comments above, and then be back in the coming days for another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. I've been back for another look through the article a couple of times, and I'm happy that this is where it needs to be for GA status. Great work! Josh Milburn (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.