Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australian Magpie/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [1].

Australian Magpie

[edit]
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets criteria. The images are appropriately licenced, the text comprehensive and I feel it really came together a lot better than some other bird articles I have nominated. The last piece of the jigsaw puzzle was the map which took a bit of time (and many thanks to the v. talented creator User:ChrisDHDR :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Will do when I get a run of a few minutes to edit uninterrupted :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the organisation is suffering for having two sections, in different parts of the article, with information on distribution. There is the distribution nformation in the taxonomy section which is a great deal more detailed than that in the section on distribution. Its a bit odd. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perennial problem with any bird which has subspecies as to where the information goes. The alternative is listing subspecies' range in distribution, which would be odd as we'd then have two sections itemising the nine subspecies. Although not ideal, the way done so far seemed the simplest way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment fascinating bird. A couple of comments while giving a first reading. Shyamal (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "is a medium-sized black and white passerine bird of the family Artamidae native to Australia and southern New Guinea" - can give the impression that the family is native to Australia ... (how 'bout now?) - yes, fine now.
    • "Juveniles' plumage contains lighter ..." - can be simpler - have gone ahead and made a change, hope it is ok.
    • "Juvenile magpies begin foraging on their own three weeks after leaving the nest, and mostly feeding themselves by six months old." - does this mean that they separate from the family group after six months perhaps ?
not necessarily, they will remain with the group after this point, it just means they can hunt grubs and insects etc. Just made me realise I didn't add anything about dispersal as birds age. Will see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it appears a bit contradictory - foraging after 3 weeks and feeding themselves after 6 months.
I take as beginning to learn (3 weeks) but still being fed up to 6 months less and less until mostly feeding themselves (at 6 months). I can try and rephrase if that isn't clear (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "have become accustomed to coexisting with people" - redundancy ?
    • "... signal for sunrise, frightening them awake with its call." - frightening sounds a bit odd
I know, it is an aboriginal dreamtime legend so 'frightening' is what it means for some reason. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok
    • the "carolling" behaviour could do with some explanation. How different from a duet or a chorus ?
The term in the main reference texts is specifically used for the call. I have changed "Pairs of magpies often take up a loud carolling call" to "Pairs of magpies often take up a loud musical calling known as carolling to advertise or defend their territory" - though I am in two minds as to whether "carolling" should be italicized or not. As far as calling it a duet, I will double check to see if more than two birds may do it (which I think they do sometimes) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
addendum - rechecked ref - now "one bird initiates the call with the second (and sometimes more) joining in." (sometimes more than two birds) i.e. not necessarily a duet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is very nicely written—it shows flair in places. However, I've nit-picked through the top:

  • Is "varied" necessary after "omnivorous"?
I take it you mean the "various" in "eating various items located at or near ground level..." - tricky, I feel it helps emphasise that the bird is a highly opportunistic feeder, eating all sorts of things, but I do concede that "omnivorous" sort of has the same connotation as well. Happy either way really, and I can live with its removal though I do like the flow with it in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is generally sedentary and territorial throughout its range." I did a double-take, since defending territory and being sedentary seem at odds. Another issue is: Are the last three words necessary?
yes, as many birds in Oz exhibit some migratory or nomadic behaviour in some areas Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other names used include ...".
  • "Murray Magpie is a name which refers to the similarly-plumaged Magpie-lark." No hyphen after an "-ly" adverb; but either way, "similarly plumaged" is kind of clunky. You might reverse it; unsure: "One Magpie-lark with a similar plumage is called the Murray Magpie. Oops, but then the very next sentence, across a para boundary, talks of another similarity, does it? Tony (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 24 .. the link appears to be to the abstract of a journal article? I'd expect to see the journal article title somewhere...

oops, added journal article title to ref 24 (Emu) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Current ref 69 (Beruldsen, G..) what makes the author an expert in their field, to satisfy WP:SPS? I note from its World Cat entry that a number of big name libraries have it (UCDavis, Oxford, and the National Agriculture Library..) so it probably just needs a bit more information to make it clearly reliable.
I know what you mean - but I am not sure what I can add to the reference itself to highlight this but the book is widely referenced and seemingly regarded as authoritative - as it is used in this Australian Museum webpage, this Australian Gov't recovery plan and is used in the HANZAB book Higgins et al. which is itself used in this article and is a weighty tome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great work; a very useful resource you've produced here. I almost feel knowledgeable on the subject now. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moral or otherwise Possible COI - I made a few minor copyedits on 22 April, and I'm a member of WP:BIRDS. I couldn't see much wrong in April and it's better now. Two unactionable comments

jimfbleak (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concern as follows:

  • File:MagpieWarningSign2008.jpg: Australia's copyrights are automatically granted (no need for registration) on creation of works. While the text here is certainly instructive (matter of fact) and unlikely copyrightable, the little caricature on the right might be of concern.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what can we d about it? A short 'fair use' explanation on the image page? Not sure here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the article suffers with its removal. I thought perhaps Australia's freedom of panorama might help, but it does not apply for drawings. I am not certain we can "mosaic" or erase the caricature, and delete the original version... As it is, I tagged it for copyvio. Jappalang (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have removed the pic from the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. good idea. and now done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick scan, I saw citation cleanup needs, missing publisher:

addressed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support

  • Images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses.
  • Sources (except for concern listed below) satisfy RS policy
  • Sources
  • Current ref 69 (Beruldsen, G..): The nest is a bowl-shaped structure made of sticks and lined with softer material such as grass and bark. Near human habitation, synthetic material may be incorporated. - This is the information sourced to Beruldsen, a self-published book. Is there really no other source that states these facts? This makes me nervous. These are fundamental facts about the building of the bird's nest. Surely they must be referenced elsewhere?
(As I pointed out above, this book is referenced all over the place - by goverment papers on bird species, and by the huge HANZAB series on all Australian and NZ birds. It is an anomaly with the self-published bit but not much I can do about it. I really need to hit the sack now and get some sleep but will see what I can dig up tomorrow) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on with this? It could be this is the best source on the bird's nest - I just want to be sure. Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered the book was published by Rigby at one stage, but have no idea why he subsequently self-published it. I still feel it is the best way to reference this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will trust your judgment on this. Awadewit (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest a copyedit of the first half of the article by an uninvolved editor. I kept getting tripped up by awkward sentences. Here are some examples:
  • although some authorities place it in its own genus Gymnorhina based on its adaptation to ground-dwelling - "based on its adaptation to ground-dwelling" is awkward and wordy - would "based on its habit of living on the ground" be acceptable?
ground-dwelling --> living on the ground. 'adaptation' necessary as it has anatomically changed, with longer legs and walking gait. agree it is tricky, especially in the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its robust wedge-shaped bill bears a hook at the end, and is a bluish-white colour bordered with black. - slightly awkward
  • Much blame on the Magpie as a predator in the past has been anecdotal only - awkward
  • The first paragraph of "Vocalisations" is particularly awkward and the entire section overuses the word "complex" - try to be use more specific diction.
  • I found the many one-sentence paragraphs to be inelegant. (agreed. combined and played with)
  • Clarifications and organization:
  • At one stage, the Australian Magpie was considered to be three separate species - When?
Sometimes cases like these aren't as exact as we'd like - eg. bird guidebooks would list as 3 species until the mid 1970s, although some key peer-reviewed publications more and more treated them as one species. I will see if I can fine-tune it a bit. The issue is there is no source saying guidebooks did this as such, just those for the literature. There is a date 2 sentences further on.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a tendency for birds to become larger with increasing latitude - Could a short explanation be added? Well here's the thing. This is clearly Bergmann's rule and insular dwarfism, yet the source (frustratingly) does not use either of those terms or align observations with either of those phenomena, even though it is pretty obvious - I was wonating to avoid any semblance of OR. I have searched for somewhere linking the terms with the magpie but with no success to date. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae) is a notable brood parasite in eastern Australia; magpies will raise cuckoo young, which eventually outcompete the magpie nestlings - This seemed kind of tacked on at the end of the "Breeding" section. I tried this Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The call has been portrayed in Denis Glover's poem The Magpies, with the refrain Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle—one of the most famous lines in New Zealand poetry—and in the children's book Waddle Giggle Gargle by Pamela Allen. - Is it necessary to repeat this bit about the poem? If so, can we find a way to repeat it more elegantly and less obviously? (yes, done)
  • Could we get a recording of the singing? I see that there are some in the external links. Those don't seem to have compatible licenses with Wikipedia, though. Any chance of obtaining a recording that does?
Love to. I have absolutely no experience in the area of chasing and adding sounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried a university in Australia or bird-watching societies? Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked around for recordings, but no luck as yet - did' get a Pied Currawong call though... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 13-year-old boy died from tetanus, apparently from a magpie injury, in northern New South Wales in 1946. - Might this be WP:UNDUE?
I mused on this, but magpie attacks are a serious problem in springtime Australia, and the event was mentioned in a couple of places as an answer to how dangerous they could be, so I veered on leaving it in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to give the article my full support. Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I rue not having any recording equipment as the dumb birds are everywhere around my house...(well, they're not dumb really actually quite smart)..but hopefully I will get some help at some stage as there are a few Australian songbirds to work up yet..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This needs rewording- based on its adaptation to living on the ground. What adaptation? There needs to be a mention in the intro that the bird is well adapted to living on the ground. It doesn't actually state that.
Semi-colons. I hate them. They are nearly always used inappropriately. I'm going to be sexist and say it's a bloke thing. Men use them to join sentences together like nuts and bolt, Selleys adhesive and "she'll be right, Mate!" Sentences that actually do relate to each other are better connected if part is turned into a phrase or a clause. If they don't relate to each other in a very direct way (I don't mean simply "follow on") then they need full stops and capital letters. I'm having a blitz. You have one short paragraph there where six sentences have been turned into three by semi colons. Amandajm (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(shuffles feet and looks at floor)...but I like them...oh well, I tried the lead like this per above, but then the genus is mentioned at the end and not with other classification notes. Still, it flows I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Australian_Magpie/archive1&oldid=1078786203"