Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black-and-red broadbill/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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2021 [1].

Black-and-red broadbill

[edit]
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)'AryKun'[reply]

The black and red broadbill is a stunning species of broadbill that lives in Southeast Asia. The article passed a GAN in August, and FunkMonk then helped with a thorough PR. AryKun (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin originally described the species as Todus macrorhynchos in 1788,[2] based on a Bornean specimen that was originally described – two times "originally" in this sentence are a bit awkward; can we get rid of one of them, the first maybe?
Done.
  • The generic name is from the Greek κυμβη (kumbē), meaning small boat (cf. an unknown bird) – I'm lost here, what is "an unknown bird" trying to say?
There's basically two Greek words that kumbe could mean here, and neither of them are particularly similar. The cf. means compare with.
I still don't get it. Do you mean that kumbe could mean "small boat" OR "unknown bird"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. AryKun (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then why not just stating this directly to be clear, maybe something like "which may either mean "small boat" or "unknown bird"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done.
  • Maybe worth linking Todus, and is there some background here? Since this is an exclusively Caribbean genus, and those birds do not look similar at all, how comes it has been attributed to that genus?
Linked Todus. I don't have any sources for why this was described in Todus, so it would be OR, but the type locality for the specimen wasn't known at the time. In any case, naturalists seemed to like sticking any colorful species into Todus no matter where it was from - see emperor fairywren.
  • and (in the Kelantan province) burong tĕrajan – what language is this? Is this the only, or at least the most important local name, or why do you pick this but not other local names?
I don't really know, Casliber seems to have added this.
  • The black-and-red broadbill is the only species in the monotypic genus – "only species" and "monotypic genus" are redundant. Since the article is already quite heavy on technical terms, you could maybe remove "monotypic genus" and link "only species" to that article. We should avoid technical terms where we can without loosing clarity.
Done.
  • The black-and-red broadbill is the only species in the monotypic genus Cymbirhynchus, in the family Eurylamidae. – I would propose to briefly introduce that family here, e.g., "a family of nine species native to tropical rainforests of Southeast Asia" or similar. A bit of background improves reading experience.
Done.
  • These two species are most closely related to the Eurylaimus broadbills and following sentences – you are describing the precise topology of the cladogram and present it as fact. Can this be considered final, or should we be more careful and attribute it to the 2017 study?
I've reworded it.
  • Replacing "et al." with "and colleagues" would get rid of another unnecessary technical term.
Done.
  • I propose to create redirects for the subspecies and for other common names (e.g., Irrawaddy broadbill) to this article.
Done.
  • For the last two subspecies, you don't give any description, although you provide this for the others.
Added.
  • Both sexes are similar in appearance, and the species does not show any sexual dimorphism. – Both parts of the sentence say the same thing and are redundant, if I see correctly?
Reworded.
  • and the species does not show any sexual dimorphism. However, females are smaller in size. – This is now contradicting. When females are smaller in size, then there is at least a slight sexual dimorphism.
Fixed.
The lead still has "The species does not show sexual dimorphism", which contradicts the main text, which has "slight sexual dimorphism". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the lead.
  • The scapulars have pure white edges, – I doubt the link to scapula is correct? Again, heavy on technical terms, maybe try to explain some particularly rare ones (like this example) in brackets in-text.
Done.
You now link this to bird anatomy, but this is a very general article. You could, alternatively, link to the glossary with scapulars. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked.
Coverts is previously linked, and I've added an in-brackets explanation. The median part just refers to their position.
Yes, that is my point: We can't expect the reader to know what "median" means. If possible, replace with a more common synonym ("inner"), or add an explanation in a bracket? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a in-bracket explanation.
  • first evolved in the common ancestor of all broadbills – Here, you mention "broadbills" for the first time. What are those? Is this the common name for Eurylaimidae?
Broadbills is a more general term that also includes the African broadbills. I've clarified references to Eurylaimidae so that they are now previously mentioned as being Asian broadbills.
  • than other species of Asian broadbills, often remaining silent, and with quieter calls than most other broadbills. – I'm still unsure what a broadbill is, but just checking: This means there are Asian broadbills and broadbills out of Asia, and the latter "most other broadbills" refers to all of them?
Yeah, broadbills in Africa are a separate family; again, I've clarified references to Eurylaimidae so that they are now previously mentioned as being Asian broadbills.
  • advertising call – can this be linked to make sure what it means? Attracting females?
Linked.
  • reported as a contact-call – why the "-" in "contact-call"?
Removed.
  • In which variety of English is this written? Seems to have elements of both British and American English.
My spelling's a bit mixed, so neither really. If you want to standardize it one way or the other, I don't really have an issue.
It is one of the high requirements of a Featured Article that this needs to be consistent. There is also the rule that we need to stick with the spelling that the article had originally. But before you worked on it, the article was so short that I don't see any hint. So I would judge it is up to you which variety you choose. Looks like you are mostly using American English, but "Behaviour", "Vocalisation", "colour" are the British forms and could be changed? I don't know too much about English varieties myself, though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would be easier to standardize it to American English, but the region where it's found uses English that's more similar to British, so maybe the latter? AryKun (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are consistently following a local English spelling system (e.g. one used in Asia), that should, I think, be fine as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • roost – link
Linked.
  • In some cases, 1–2 assistants also help construct the nest. They are smaller than the nests of other broadbills – This is confusing, because "They" seems to refer to the assistants.
Reworded.
  • tall (excluding the hanging tail) – using "the" here implies this has been mentioned before, but I don't think it has? Maybe introduce these hanging tails when describing the next morphology?
The tail's supposed to refer to the hanging trail of loose material below the nest.
  • ranged from 5-80 – this needs an ndash (a – not a -)
Fixed.
  • Although the black-and-red broadbill's population has not been quantified – I am concerned that readers may not understand "quantified" here. Can a simpler word be used?
Replaced with "determined".
Thanks for the review, I've responded to all the things you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how to fix this? I'm not really good with citations.
Essentially there are two different types of citation templates in use - ones starting {{citation, and ones starting {{cite (cite book, cite journal, etc). Either of these different types would be acceptable, but we just can't mix them. So to fix this, pick one type - whichever one you would prefer - and changes all the citations of the other kind to use the one you pick. (At the moment there are a lot more of the second type than the first so it would probably be easier to standardize on that, but your call). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done for most refs. However, I can't see how to do this for the IUCN status ref in the infobox.
  • FN6 is missing location
Added.
  • FN7: don't include work title in |title=. Ditto FN8
I don't get how to fix this either.
In both of these cases you have |title= that includes not only the name of the individual page, but also the name of the whole website. It would make more sense to replace what you currently have in |website= with part of what is currently in |title= (the last part, in both cases). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AryKun (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AryKun (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, does this mean that the source review is passed? (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is still some mixing of {{citation}} and {{cite}}-family templates going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, gone over all the refs and fixed the one that was still a {{citation}}, so could you check again? AryKun (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: (t · c) buidhe 13:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review this.

  • "Based on a 2017 study by Selvatti and colleagues". Could Selvatti be properly introduced.
Added first name.
No you haven't. It needs something like 'the Brazilian naturalist Alexandre Selvatti ...' or 'the Italian songbird poacher and gun runner Alexandre Selvatti ...' or whatever, (Similar to "The German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin described ...")
Okay, done.
  • "along with more white-tipped tail feathers". Does this mean more tail feathers, more white-tipped ones or a higher proportion of white-tipped tail feathers?
Rephrased.
  • "In Laos, the most frequently heard call was a series". Why the change in tense? ("was") And why is Laos singled out? Is the call different in other countries? Does the rest of this paragraph also apply only to birds in Laos?
The source only gives that it was the most frequently heard call in Laos, so I think that it would be OR to generalize.
I agree, perhaps this should be specified? What about my other two queries?
Rephrased that sentence. The rest of the paragraph is more general, and I hope the rephrasing makes this clearer. AryKun (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. It still reads to me as if everything bar the first sentence only applies to Laos. Perhaps "They also make ascending weeet sounds ..." → 'Across the whole of their range they make ascending weeet sounds ...'? Or move the sentence about the Laotian birds to the end of the paragraph? Or both.
I've moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph.
  • "and usually overhanging water". "overhanging" → 'overhang'.
Done.
  • "more uncommonly" → 'less commonly'.
Done.
  • "Nests are also rarely built far from water". Delete "also".
Rephrased.
  • "The inside is usually lined". With what?
Rephrased the sentence to be a bit clearer.
  • "the base is covered with". The inside or outside of the base? Or both?
Rephrased the sentence to be a bit clearer.
  • "Black-and-red broadbills were parasitized by the chewing louse Myrsidea claytoni in Vietnam, where all examined birds were parasitized." The switch in tense doesn't really work. It reads as if it needs an introduction, something like 'In a 1999 study by A. Smithers et al in Vietnam of 157 black-and-red broadbills all examined birds were found to be parasitized by the chewing louse Myrsidea claytoni.' Or whatever.
Rephrased.
  • Could we be given an idea of what the other five parasites are, similar to "by the chewing louse Myrsidea claytoni".
Done.

That's all I have. A nice piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One response above, plus:
No, as there are no published works that actually document any instances of predation. AryKun (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

I've failed to see this particular broadbill, certainly spectacular. Generally pretty comprehensive text, but some nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The choice of American English for a southeast Asian species seems slightly odd, given that Indian and British English are more common in the region, but I don't think any of the named countries has English as an official language, so that's probably not actionable. More to the point, you are not consistent; mollusk but colour
Fixed one instance I could find, are there any other?
  • dichromatic should be linked or replaced with two-coloured
Done.
  • but the size of birds increases and the white on the tail decreases from north to south through its range.— mention of clinal perhaps?
Done.
  • It is smaller in size just It is smaller
Done.
  • Any idea how long they live?
No sources mentioning that, but I've added the generation length given by the IUCN.
  • I'm pleased to see a parasite section, but like Gog, I'd appreciate some indication of the nature of the red-linked pests
Done.
  • You give plenty on parasites, but nothing on predators. Any mammals, birds or reptiles that are known to like a tasty broadbill lunch?
No sources actually documenting this, but one does mention potential predators, so I've added that. AryKun (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's hard to find named predators even for NAm or European birds, so that's fine. No other BE I could see. I'd be inclined to have a single parasites and predators section to avoid a one-line section, but I'll leave that to you. Gog's remaining points seem easily fixable, so change to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merged the parasites and predators sections. AryKun (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2021 (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/Black-and-red_broadbill/archive1&oldid=1053685181"