Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cactus wren/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2020 [1].

Cactus wren

[edit]
Nominator(s): Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cactus wren is a hardy desert bird of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, able to live without water and through the hottest of summers. As the state bird of Arizona, it is an icon of the Sonoran Desert. I brought the article up to GA earlier this year, and am excited to present it as my first FAC. FAC recommends a mentor for first time noms, and the illustrious Casliber has been kind enough to fill that role for me. The article has received a thorough peer review, and a copyedit by GOCE. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment from Tim riley

[edit]

Just booking my place. The article looks v. impressive and I've read through once without finding anything to grumble about. But as I know nothing about birds beyond tips from Elizabeth David or Julia Child I'd prefer to wait till more expert reviewers have had their say. – Tim riley talk 14:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a second read-through of the article and a perusal of the comments below, I am happy to add my support. The only quibble I have been able to come up with after a determined attempt is to question if the blue link for "sidewalk" isn't perhaps a touch of WP:OVERLINK (I speak as an Englishman, who calls the things "pavements", but "sidewalk" is a pretty familiar word). That really is neither here nor there, and the article is a good read (easily understood by a non-expert like me), evidently comprehensive, gorgeously illustrated and impressively referenced. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

First read through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wren has… They are brown with black and white spots as markings
I see your concern here. However, I am going to opt not to change it at the moment, as I suspect the lead is going to get heavily re-written, thanks to Fowler&Fowler's very in-depth comments on the lead. I may ask for a second read-through of the lead once I have taken F&F's suggestions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chest is whiter... Their song
I take it you wanted standardization here, thus have opted to change "the" to "their". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • prolate spheroidal isn't exactly reader friendly, pipe it through rugby ball or similar
more to come Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak Thanks for the review! Originally I had it piped to Ball (gridiron football) with the label "American football". That has been a point of some contention, and has been changed around several times. The current wording was created by Gog the Mild during their copyedit, I would be interested on their take on it as well before changing it. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek and Jimfbleak: I chose prolate spheroid as the best of a poor selection. As the Cap'n says, it previously used "American football", which is accurate but would mean nothing to most readers. Similarly "rugby ball" excludes possibly a majority of readers. "Prolate spheroid" is technically correct, and seemed appropriate for a technical article. One downside is that it is equally inaccessible to almost all readers. But then so are many of the terms in this article. I would have no concerns about a switch to either of the other suggestions. Neither would be my first choice, but I don't see this as an issue with a 'right' answer. Happy to address any follow up questions, especially if I have missed the point. Or to contribute further to deciding which choice to go with, if you think that may be useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, is Jim suggesting prolate spheroidal? If so, that seems quite clever to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too clever for me, I'd be happy with anything that was less technical, American football, rugby ball etc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it back to American football. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first cactus wren was described —really? I think you mean the first description of a cactus wren
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cactus wren was placed in the genus Helodytes... but they placed it back in Campylorhynchus— repeated placed
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • frequent use of cactus as nesting sites —shouldn't it be cacti?
Ya know, I'm not exactly sure, but I've made the change anyway. They're called cactus wrens, not cacti wrens, but then again I don't really understand octopus/octopi so I'm not the best person to ask :) Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anders Anderson and Anne Anderson— Anders and Anne Anderson seems more natural
Right you are Mr. Anderson. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guttatus should be italicised as a foreign-language word, similar affinis etc
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • rectrices—link
The first mention is already linked (in the subspecies secton). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the cactus wren looks similar to other wrens in its genus, their identification
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1,000 feet (300 m). should be metric to US, add parameter order=flip''
 Done Thats a very clever little technique, thank you! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.3 ha (0.013 km2) to 1.9 ha (0.019 km2). should be metric to US, not metric to metric
I have converted to yd2, as converting to feet or miles gave some wacky numbers. If anyone has a better suggestion, lemme know. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{convert|1.3|ha|acre}} gives 1.3 hectares (3.2 acres) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thats the unit I was thinking of. Thats why I prefer metric :) I have swapped it over. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link ''Rio Grande ''
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''3 ft (0.9 m) off the ground,[12] and are usually less than 10 ft (3.0 m) off the ground, but have been recorded as high as 30 ft (9.1 m). '' and back to US to metric again...
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link clutch, brood, termite, nectar
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parasites and diseases? I found this and BNA mentions feather mites
  • 6 inches (20 cm)... were well over 100 feet (30 m}... sigh...
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 9 needs binomial italicised
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • see last para of this
I am in the process of adding a paragraph using this and the above source. It will take me a bit to sift through them. Thanks for finding these! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a paragraph about parasites, if you could read it over that would be good. Of the two sources, only the 2012 California one had usable content. The Irish naturalist article was still interesting, and applicable to wrens as a family, and I have added it to the further reading. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like the parasites, changed to support above now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images are are correctly licensed and appropriate. The only thing you might consider is perhaps having a habitat shot to show the landscape they are found in, just a suggestion though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added File:2010 Sonoran Desert 04.jpg to the habitat section. In the process I moved the image of a wren atop a saguaro to the status section. Let me know if thats too many images, or if they should be reordered. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Sainsf

[edit]

I reviewed this for GA criteria. Glad to see this at FAC, and how much it has improved since then. Here are my comments on this one again, mostly things I may have missed out on earlier, or which matter for an FA but not for a GA:

Thanks for the double review! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cactus wren's common name comes from I feel we could just go with "The common name" as we have not mentioned any other names. In fact it may give the impression that there is one apart from "cactus wren". The The bird's common name comes from... used in "Taxonomy and systematics" sounds fine.
  • Agree with Jim about the "prolate spheroidal" term. Can we keep the term but relate it with the rugby ball or something as an example, in brackets next to it? As in the Reproduction section?
I have changed it back to American football at the moment, but would be open to doing other things. I think a discussion on the talk page from reviewers might be useful, as there are several different ideas. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I won't strike this one out as other opinions might help in improving this, but it won't affect my !vote for this nom. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cactus wren's common name comes from its frequent use ... Their prolate spheroidal-shaped nests Keep it as either singular or plural, or switch to "their" in the first line maybe.
Have fixed the lead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "exotic grasses" could be wikilinked? Not sure if it is too a common term.
I can't think of a good thing to wikilink here. There is no exotic grass page, and introduced species is already linked at the start of the sentence. Suggestions welcome. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ornithologists described the cactus wren multiple times as different species, and as late as 1898. I am a bit confused here. What was as late as 1898? The incorrect descriptions? Or did the others start describing it as late as 1898?
I have changed the wording to hopefully clarify, please take another look. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cactus wren was placed in the genus Helodytes by the American Ornithologists' Union in 1894, but they returned it to Campylorhynchus in 1947. Do we know why it was placed in the first genus and then shifted to the other?
I'm afraid not, as early taxonomy is often a void. I could guess any number of reasons, but none of the sources I have mention why. Its likely that only the people who changed the taxonomy in the 1800's know, and they are long dead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the names in the cladogram not begin with just C. instead of Campylorhynchus repeated everywhere?
 Done Piped a lotta links. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subspecies are missing from the infobox
 Done Didn't even know you could add them, but now I do! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should add the authors and years too, do it like in the synonyms. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A great suggestion! I have filled in the taxon data, courtesy of ITIS. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thyrothorus guttatus Gould 1836 in synonyms. Comma missing before the year (2 more cases right after that)
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible wikilink the names of those who described the subspecies.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I can't find where you've linked them, could you give me the diff maybe? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had done it in the infobox. I have now also done so in the body, where possible. Some of the more obscure ornithologists don't have articles and probably shouldn't. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe say right before you start the subspecies list that you are enlisting all proposed subspecies? Going straight to the list when we were discussing the dispute about the subspecies seems a bit incomplete to me, personally.
Added Below are all proposed subspecies Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guttatus is Latin and means "speckled". Maybe sounds more concise if we say "Latin for "speckled"." May be used for affinis and a few other cases later too.
 Done All cases have been dealt with, except for one on C. b. seri, as I thought it flowed better. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Affinis "allied" or "related" in Latin Typo? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good catch. Fixed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American Ornithological Society classifies all California subspecies Should it be "Californian" instead?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could use wikilink for "scapulars". "Rump" is actually linked in the next section.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Californian ornithologist Walter Pierce Bryant, (1861–1905) Stray comma?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exact meaning of the subspecies name is unclear, it may be Should probably be a semicolon and not a comma
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A distinctive white supercilium (eyebrow) run from the bill Runs?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other distinctive features of juvenile include I think you mean "juveniles"
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the most northern breeding population "northernmost" sounds better to me
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is found only in the extreme southwestern part of Utah. You mean "in Utah it is found only in the extreme southwest"? Both lines differ in meaning.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heavy seasonal rainfall can extend breeding: young have been recorded in nests as late as August The cited example probably has the impact it should have on the reader only after he/she learns when eggs are typically laid. Probably shift it to the part where you discuss it?
I have moved the egg info to lower in the section. I have also gone back to Anderson & Anderson, and expanded upon the egg laying season. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tube like entrance, about 15 cm (6 in) long I guess it should be tubelike, similar to pouchlike
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Anderson and Anderson reporting an average time of 2.7 days Maybe "the Andersons" works better. The ornithologists Anderson & Anderson noted a minimum... Here you use a different way to mention them, consistency would be good.
I have standardized it as "Anderson & Anderson", but would be amenable to changing it to "the Andersons" if you feel that is better. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Striking this out; I am fine with any option as long as it is consistent. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to six broods may be attempted in a year, but it is rare for more three to survive Did you mean "more than three"?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link for "microclimate" would be good
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the facts on social behavior be included in Feeding? Not exactly where I would search f Probably can be an intro part to the Behavior and ecology section with more info to substantiate? Also I feel a bit of this should be in the lead.
I have moved the social paragraph to the head as a sort of intro. I also added one sentence on living in pairs/family groups into the lead. Let me know if more is needed, or perhaps I should do something different. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nests built in cactus provide a degree of protection to young, yet even in cactus, young wrens are Could use a semicolon and not a comma before "yet"
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • interspecies nest distances Should it be "interspecific" instead?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expected "Threats" to describe threats like habitat loss.. maybe it should be named something related to interspecific interactions?
That was based on the WP:BIRD approach to headings. They do give an option between "Threats" or "Survival" however, so I have changed it to "Survival". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at "Status", maybe Californian populations have become increasingly fragmented due to habitat destruction is redundant and not really fitting in "Distribution and habitat".
Removed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous:

  • The article could use an "External links" section at the end containing the links to other wiki sites (like Commons and all) plus useful species accounts elsewhere on the web. Just a feature I've seen in most FAs.
I'll admit I hadn't added one, as I personally do not much like external links. I might need some help doing that, as I'm not sure what I'd add. Most of the websites I thought were quite good are already used as sources. If you could provide an example of a model section from a bird FA, I'd appreciate. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this one. Note that it is optional, just adds good stuff to the article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, I'm going to opt not to have an EL section. The links to commons/wikispecies are already at the bottom of the article in fancy little boxes. Beyond that, I just couldn't find any super useful EL. I will keep hunting, but there's honestly not tons of great web content on the wren. Most of my best sources were books. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images are nice but could use more interesting captions. Maybe say which subspecies it is (if we know for sure) in the pic in Subspecies, or use a good pic where the subspecies is known for sure. The image in Description could additionally say "Note the white speckles against the brown background" or in Feeding the caption can be the wren feeds on insects such as what is shown in the pic. It's a general FAC suggestion I have often come across.
I had kept it short because I was under the impression that long captions were much frowned upon. I have jazzed them up a bit. For the one in the taxonomy section, I have used A & A's guide to subspecies, combined with rangemaps, to say that the bird is C.b. couesi. That strikes me as WP:OR however, so may need to be undone. However, not a single image I've seen has been identified down to subspecies, or at least not that could be used on Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's better to remove the OR part then. And maybe locations can be omitted to shorten things, like in the caption "Near the entrance of a nest in a cholla cactus, at the Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix, Arizona. Despite the prickly thorns, this wren's plumage remains in good condition." That is if the location is not exactly necessary for the image. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have reworked the captions again, and re-ordered some images. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how relevant the nest pic is under Description. One would expect more focus on physical features in pics there, if you have many to choose from.
I have updated caption to discuss feather condition, making it fit better. I have also added another image, so that the first one is just of the bird. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CAPFRAG , if the caption is a sentence fragment it should not end with a period; but if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the helpful feedback. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you are really fast in your response :) Great job for someone's first FAC! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have signed up for WikiCup 2020, and I plan to add this review to my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
One adittional comment, there are many very similar images, how about spicing it up a bit by replacing some with more unusual poses, such as:[2][3] FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second image is quite exceptional and I have added it. Good find! And thanks again for the peer review. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Fowler&fowler

[edit]

Welcome to your first FAC! I am trying to experiment with a critique written from the POV of a newcomer and focusing on the lead. For that reason, I have not read the rest of the article. Nor have I read other reviews. There may be existing conventions in WP Ornithology, so feel free to tell me when my suggestions clash with them. There may also be MOS conventions on using wikilinks instead of descriptors, whether single words or phrases, so please tell me.

  • The cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) is a species of wren that is endemic to parts of the Southwestern United States and northern and central Mexico.
    • Would it make sense not to use endemic at this stage, and prefer instead "that is uniquely indigenous to ...?"
All of the sources I have use endemic, and I would prefer to as well. The indigenous species concept is poorly defined, and open to more interpretation than endemic. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it make sense to use a geographical description that is evocative of the bird's name, and in some ways more informative, such as "to the deserts of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico?"
Good idea! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, overall, would, "The cactus wren ... is a species of wren that is uniquely indigenous to the deserts of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico" make the sentence more accessible?
Partially implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are eight generally recognized subspecies.
    • Would it be more accurate to say, "Biologists have thus far identified seven or eight (or eight or nine, as it the case) subspecies of the cactus wren?"
I have moved it to the end of the paragraph per another reviewer, and have generally changed the wording. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wren has prominent white eyebrows that stretch to the nape of the neck.
    • I am assuming that by "prominent" you mean "visually prominent." Would it be better to say, "The cactus wren has striking white ...?" ("prominent" in the human context can mean bushy.) If these markings set this wren apart from other birds, you could use "characteristic" or "distinctive."
Have changed to distinctive. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about using "stretch." Would it be better to say, "... has striking white eyebrows that sweep back from above its beak to the nape of its neck?" Is it a closer descriptive fit to the accompanying picture?
Changed to sweep. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are brown with black and white spots as markings."
    • "They" here would syntactically apply to the eyebrows, not to the wren, which in any case thus far has been described in the singular. I'm hard-pressed to see brown as the single color in the accompanying picture. Would, "The cactus wren's coloration has different shades of brown speckled with black and white spots." be better?
  • "The tail, as well as certain flight feathers, are also barred in black and white."
    • "Certain" is typically used to individualize but not too precisely. Is it needed? In other words, can we not use it at all (i.e. use the zero article), or use "some" or can we be more precise and say which flight feathers? Is the "also" needed? It suggests that the tail and flight feathers have the black and white spots, and, besides, have black and white bars. Is that true?
I have removed the also, and the certain. Looking back at my sources, all the feathers seem to be barred (although to varying degrees). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chest is whiter, while the underparts are cinnamon-buff colored.
    • Whiter than what? It is probably better to describe the color. I'm not very good with colors, but is it ivory, or eggshell white? Is there a link for cinnamon-buff? Although "while" is perfectly acceptable usage for expressing contrast, would "whereas" be better?
I have linked Cinnamon and buff. I have changed whiter to simply "white". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their song is harsh and raspy; ornithologists have described it as like a car engine that will not start.
    • "raspy" is harsh. Do we need both? Should "song" be wikilinked to Bird vocalization? "it as like a" is a little vague. Isn't their vocalization also loud? Would it be better to write "Its song is a loud raspy chirrup, akin—in the description of some ornithologists—to the sound of a car engine that will not start?"
Good idea. I have wl'd song too. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cactus wrens are well-adapted to their native desert environment, and can meet their water needs from their diet – which consists chiefly of insects, supplemented with some plant matter.
    • This sentence is another reason why the mention of "deserts" in the first sentence is helpful. The sentence assumes a previous mention of the desert.
    • "chiefly" and "supplemented," together, are redundant, as one implies the other. Also, "supplement" has the vague implication of supplying a want or need, which has already been stated once, and which might not be a part of the wren's purposefulness, but rather its evolutionary adaptation. Would it be better to say, "Cactus wrens are well-adapted to their native desert environment, and can meet their water needs from their diet which consists chiefly of insects, but also of some plant matter?"
Implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are ground feeders and spend much of their time on the ground searching for food, as they are somewhat poor fliers.
    • Isn't a ground feeder a bird that spends much of its time on the ground foraging for food? Would it be better to say, "The cactus wren is a poor flier, and generally forages for food on the ground."
    • Would it make sense here to make a connection with endemism, if there is one?
Can't say that there is a connection? Or not one that could be concisely summarized for the lead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their American football-shaped nests are constructed first of plant material, then lined with feathers.
    • Their nests don't seem to be of a well-defined geometric shape (such as that of weaver birds). The literature uses "bulky," "large," "globular," as well, in my quick reading.
I have went back through my sources and confirmed that, and changed the wording. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reminds me, you have said nothing about the bird's size (in inches and centimeters). A large size would necessitate large nests.
Have added as the second sentence that they are the largest wren in the US. I have opted to not include numbers. If someone wishes numbers, they may read the body. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need "first" or "then." Lining is necessarily done after building. So, would, "They employ plant material to build large bulky round- or egg shaped nests, and line their interiors with feathers." be better? Egg-shaped is piped to ovoid.
I have opted to not implement that suggestion. I think it is a harder and less accessible read. None of my sources mention egg shaped either, so I would be hestitant to claim as such. I have changed the sentence around however, as you raise good points. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cactus wrens are non-migratory, and establish and defend territories around their nests.
    • Would it be better to simply say, "Cactus wrens do not migrate, establishing and defending their territories around their nests."
That is better. Have implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pairs are monogamous, with females incubating eggs while males build new nests; both parents feed chicks.
    • You probably do not need "with" and "new" Also, what are "pairs?" "While" is ambiguous, as it can mean "during," which is not the intended meaning here. Also, nests are built before the incubation of eggs. Would, "Pairing among cactus wrens is monogamous; in each breeding season, the males build nests, the females incubate eggs, and both parents feed the young." be better?
Have implemented, although I'm unsure about it. I added "Cheifly" before males, as the pairs do work together to make some nests. Once a clutch has fledged, females will go back to help continue building nests. Suggestion on how to better tackle that dichotomy is welcome. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Introduced species, such as exotic grasses and domestic cats, have also hurt populations."
      • Should we say barn cats and feral cats? Should we say why exotic grasses have hurt populations?
Have taken both suggestions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seem to be coherence issues in the paragraph: on the one hand, the cactus wren is slow to disperse into new habitat in response to habitat loss; on the other, it has proved adaptable. How so? You have to tell us. I will leave you to rewrite this paragraph. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the last paragraph, and attempted to improve the coherence. I'm trying to cover a dichotomy: populations are declining but abundant. Hopefully I now do that better. Further advice would be welcome. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback fowler! I have read your comments, but just letting you know that I will probably get to them last. I'm smoothing out sourcing and content in the body, and I want it to be perfect before I polish off the lead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

Speciesbox

  • The authority should be in brackets ie (Lafresnaye, 1835) (English wikipedia follows ICZN Article 51.3).
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "There are eight generally recognized subspecies." The number is disputed - 7 is more common - and the slight regional variation probably shouldn't be the first item mentioned in the lead after the range.
Changed to seven and also moved to end of intro paragraph, instead of start. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wren has prominent white eyebrows that stretch to the nape of the neck." Better to start the description with more general features such as the size and the overall colour. Also, I don't like the use of "eyebrows" - I would use the technical word supercilium - but as an alternative consider "a prominent white stripe above the eye"
I have changed to supercilium, and started with size and color. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • "A 2007 genetic study by Blackwell-Rago et al. indicated that all three were distinct species.[3][5][6]" The 2007 molecular phylogenetic study was by Keith Barker.
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reference 7 (Blackwell-Rago et al) has the authors in the wrong order. It should be: Zink, R.M.; Kessen, A.E.; Line, T.V.; Blackwell-Rago, R.C. (2001). "Comparative phylogeography of some aridland bird species". Condor. 103 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1650/0010-5422(2001)103[0001:CPOSAB]2.0.CO;2..
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a cite to the original description. (BHL is wonderful)
Oooh thank you very much for finding that! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...he procured his specimen from a naval officer who had recently returned from California." This isn't quite correct - only indirectly. Lafresnaye states that he obtained his specimen from Charles Brelay, a collector based in Bordeaux. Brelay had obtained the specimen from a naval officer. This is described in English by Outram Bangs here.
Ah, thanks for finding that. The source I had (A&A's 1973 book primarily) gave only a brief account of Lafresnaye. I have amended the account with the reference from Bangs. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...established, using a molecular clock," - a "molecular clock" is not needed for a cladogram - only needed if you want estimate dates for the splits.
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider simplifying the cladogram by removing the subspecies - apart from the two C. zonatus subspecies that are not each others closest relative. It would also help the reader if you used the common names with the binomials in brackets.
I have done both. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A great improvement - but why not link the common names rather than the binomials (with the redirects) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked the common names instead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies

Ah, I had no clue! The more you know. I have added the IOC info to the taxonomy section. Should I remove the older taxonomy info (such as A&A, or the American Ornithologists society)? Or should I still discuss it? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. b. affinis ... This subspecies is sometimes further divided into C. b. affinis and C. b. purus, but this distinction is not widely recognized.[3]" Perhaps mention this under C. b. purus.
Have moved. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. b. seri (van Rossem, 1932) – Found along the coasts of the Gulf of California." This subspecies only occurs on Tiburón Island (see IOC, HBW etc). It is also worth mentioning a molecular genetic study published in 2010 that found that seri could not be differentiated genetically from the subspecies occurring on the mainland: Rojas‐Soto, O.R.; Westberg, M.; Navarro‐Sigüenza, A.G.; Zink, R.M. (2010). "Genetic and ecological differentiation in the endemic avifauna of Tiburón Island". Avian Biology. 41 (4): 398–406. doi:10.1111/j.1600-048X.2010.04864.x.
Good find. I have added that, and changed it to note Tiburon island. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "It has a thick, heavy bill that is dull black, curves slightly downwards, and is about the same length as the head.[5][15][3][8]:1" Why do you need 4 cites for this apparently uncontentious sentence?
Ah, yes that may seem a bit like overkill. However, that sentence took all four refs to put together. None of the refs alone had all of that information. If you could suggest a better way to deal with the refs, I'm open. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more later. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps mention in the lead that the sexes are similar in appearance.
Done. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I'm happy with the changes. A non-actionable comment. This article relies heavily on web sites. I would prefer to see more use made of journal articles and suspect that the seven open-access journal articles that I've added to the Further reading could be used to support some of the material in the article. Although I have personal subscriptions to HBW and BNA, I still prefer to cite journal articles, especially those that are open access. For much of the information, journal articles are at least as good, if not better sources, than the pay-walled web pages.

Source review by Nikkimaria

[edit]

- spotchecks not done

  • Page ranges in both reflist and superscripts should use endashes rather than hyphens. Also, is there a reason to manually code superscripts rather than using {{rp}}?
  • I've fixed these, not guaranteeing I've found them all -Jim
To be quite honest, I had no clue there was a template for it; I'd seen it done and kinda just assumed that it had been done manually. Useful to know that template exists, and I will use it going forward. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should I go through and replace the manual ones with the template? Would be somewhat onerous, but I could. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The one citation template I could find was turned into a cite book template. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how much detail you provide for publication locations
I have fixed the cases I could find. If I have missed any, let me know. I opted to go for "city, region", as some of the cities were somewhat obscure. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surrey's not a city, and check location for FN18, there seems to be a typo. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether book titles are presented in title or sentence case
I fixed all of the cite book templates. For the one California book, I capitalized the title but opted to not capitalize the subtitle as that seemed excessive. If you think I should captalize the subtitle, let me know. If I missed a book because it wasn't in a cite book template, let me know. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use all-caps for work titles
  • Fn12: not all of that is the title
  • Be consistent in how you format website titles
@Nikkimaria: Could you clarify? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most use the name alone, but then you've got "www.birdzilla.com" rather than Birdzilla.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn27 isk missing retrieval date
Fixed Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jim has alphabetized it, and I agree with that strat. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for that! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • "The chest is whiter," Whiter than what?
Ah that is supposed to be white, not whiter. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Work on wren taxonomy in the 20th century postulated that the Yucatan, Boucard's, and cactus wrens – along with the spotted wren – might constitute a superspecies. The 2007 study showed this to be unlikely, as the cactus wren was found to be ancestral to the other species." I'm probably just displaying my ignorance here, but why does that show the superspecies possibility to be unlikely?
A superspecies occurs when several organisms have been labeled as separate, but are in fact the same species. But if one of the species evolved before the others (i.e. is ancestral), there's no way they can be the same species. If you have a suggestion on how to clarify that in text, I would be willing to implement it. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether it is worth identifying the subspecies in image captions where known?
I've looked at a lot of images and have yet to find one where the subspecies was clearly identified. While I could probably identify the ss using the ornithology refs I have, that strikes me as OR. If someone finds one that's been identified by an expert, I'm all for adding it tho! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outer rectrices are white tipped.[3][5] ... Legs are brown to pink-brown.[3]" These aren't really full sentences.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and has less markings" fewer markings or less marking, surely?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " series of "jar-jar-jar",[3] or "char", notes" Would italics rather than speech marks not be usual for vocalisations? See more in the same section and one in the "survival" section
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You compare the nexts to an American football only in the lead; further down the article, it's a gridiron or rugby ball.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nests built in urban settings use a much wider variety of materials, including many human made items such as paper, string, lint, and notably: chicken feathers, used as nest lining in great quantities where available" I'm not keen on the colon; I wonder if this couldd be reworked? I also note that chicken feathers are not "human made items". Maybe split the sentence?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's make do rather than make due isn't it? Either way, perhaps a little informal? (Image caption.)
I have reworded the caption. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similar species (such as the wrentit and Bewick's wren) which nest in coastal sage scrub (the preferred nesting habitat of coastal cactus wrens) have faced high levels of local extinction." People concerned about that/which might twitch at this sentence, but I don't want to make a recommendation as I am not sure precisely what is being claimed. Is it perhaps worth revisiting? (I'm also not a massive fan of the semi-colon in the following sentence, but maybe that's unfair.)
Semicolon in next sentence changed. I have also swapped which to that. I am unsure the correct wording, but "that" sounds better. The sentence aims to show that similar species are at considerable risk of local extinction, but without trying to overgeneralize the statement. Its a common tactic in science writing; when you lack data on one species, you use data for similar species to make an inference, which is exactly what the source I took it from did. If you have suggestions for cleaned up wording, I am open. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what jumps out at me from a first read-through. Very interesting and readable, and great to see a new face (at FAC) producing articles like this; welcome! Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll get to comments as fast as I can, but will be swamped with the holidays for the next few days. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh Milburn: I have gone through and implemented your comments. Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if you think I should do something differently. And I'm glad to be here at FAC, I hope to be back here before long with some other good articles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as long as source and image checks come back OK. Great work; not a bird I knew before now. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I am participating in the 2020 WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Query from WereSpielChequers

[edit]
  • I have made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki.
@WereSpielChequers: Good tweaks. Thanks for taking a look! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "As many as three broods may be raised in a single year,[20][24] although one or two is more typical.[14] Up to six broods may be attempted in a year, but it is rare for more than three to survive.[3]" I suggest you combine these, at the moment it is repetitive and a bit contradictory. Especially in light of the next sentence "most egg laying occurring in March" as this implies that most have but one brood a year. ϢereSpielChequers 17:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked the sentences. I have also changed the next sentence to say that "March being the height of the laying season", to deal with the implication of one brood a year (which is not always true, there is a lot of variation). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, happy to support this for FA. ϢereSpielChequers 10:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Given this is your first FAC, CaptainEek (a belated welcome BTW!) I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. One of the above reviewers might be interested in performing this, or you can leave a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello Ian, and thanks for the welcome. I tried quite hard to avoid plagiarism and paraphrasing (as I had FAC in mind when writing), but welcome a source review. Its possible I missed something. I will ask for one on the talk page, and invite the existing reviewers to help out in that realm. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources are paywalled or not available online, reviewers are welcome to ask me for access. I still have Anderson and Anderson's book on me, and can provide copies of pages via email. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, the spotcheck is a hoop we ask all newbies to jump through, as well as the old hands who haven't had one for a while. Even with the best intentions we can read more into a source than is really there, or use too-similar wording to the source in our articles -- I know from my own experiences as a nominator... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do a spot check on Monday or Tuesday next week when next at the British Library. Tim riley talk 15:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: See Tim's completed spotcheck below. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-check

I have been somewhat stymied in doing the books side of the spot check: for the first time in my experience both the books I wanted at the British Library (Anderson & Anderson and Vol 10 of Handbook of the Birds of the World) are reportedly in use by another reader. I find this beyond strange, but never mind! There are plenty of online sources to spot-check. There are just under 150 citations in total; I have spot-checked 45 of them.

  • 14a–h – all fine
  • 14i – the source says 1 metre (3ft), not 0.9m (3 ft). Your arithmetic is better than theirs, but I think you should say 1m (3.3 ft) as the metre is the figure given. Incidentally, though not part of my brief here, it would be better, I think, to stick to a consistent order throughout: either imperial measures with metric in brackets or vice versa.
 Done I changed the math, and also made sure that all converts had metric first. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14j–m – fine
  • 14n – I don't think this reflects what the quoted source says: our "Almost all water is obtained from food, and free-standing water is rarely used even when found" doesn't seem to square with the source's "Adults begin to drink free water in September, and the rate of consumption apparently increases to high levels in December and January". This makes me want a citation for the next sentence: "The cactus wren can survive as a true xerophile, existing without any free water".
The Xerophile comment comes from Birds of NA online, which says "Cactus Wren's diet does not preclude adaptation for desert environment and species may be considered true xerophile (i.e., surviving without free water; Ricklefs, R. E. and F. R. Hainsworth. (1968a)." Excuse the slightly odd grammar, I only have a digital copy, which is formatted a bit wack. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14o – fine
  • 16a–f – all fine
  • 20a - fine
  • 20b – fine, but you should perhaps switch the two citations round so that [20] comes before [23]
I have gone through all citations and ensured that all are in numerical order. Let me know if I missed any! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20c and d - fine
  • 20e – fine, but as at 20b, I'd put the citations in numerical order
  • 22a–h – all fine
  • 23a and b – fine
  • 23c – I can't find anything in this source that refers to egg-smashing or brood parasitism. I can't check the other source, and I take it on trust that this is from it. If so it might be as well to delete the 23c reference.
Removed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23d–h – all fine
  • 25 – fine
  • 32 – fine, but it's an 18-page article, and a specific page number (87, I think) would be helpful.
I have added the specific page number, good spot. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of great moment there, but a couple of points that could do with checking and re-citing if necessary. I found no problems with close paraphrase: the main author of the article has shown great skill in conveying the import of the quoted sources in different words (and very readable prose, let me add). My comments about having citations in numerical order also apply to [5][19][3][10] in "Description". – Tim riley talk 10:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the source review! I've implemented or responded to most comments. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fix ping @Tim riley: Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I'm now happy to sign off this spot-check as satisfactory, in my judgement. Tim riley talk 08:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • They have a distinctive white supercilium that sweeps to the nape of the neck. – It is important to use as few technical terms in the lead as possible. Can this be replaced with "eyebrows" or "stripe above the eyes" or something similar?
I originally wrote eyebrow, another reviewer asked that I change it. I will change it back to eyebrow however, as that is more accessible. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do not migrate, establishing and defending their territories around their nests. – Not clear: What has the latter to do with migration? Migrating birds can also defend own territories? Maybe make clear that they stay in fixed territories for their lives?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was historically considered conspecific – maybe add a gloss explaining the term conspecific, or avoid the term completely by reformulating.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First section in Taxonomy: Consider putting the info into chronological order, first providing the 20th century interpretations, and then the 2007 study. Makes it easier to follow I think.
While I appreciate the suggestion, the current layout is slightly non-chronological as it makes more sense to
  • gifted to him by Charles Brelay. – Would be helpful to introduce these people with one word, such as "biologist", "traveller" or whatever. Who was Brelay?
Oooh a good idea, I have added one word descriptors to the folks in the taxonomy section. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ornithologists described the cactus wren multiple times as different species – Multiple times, but if so, why is only one instance (the species described by Gould) being discussed?
Because Gould's find is written about in the most detail in the sources I have, and the other descriptions were by less prominent ornithologists. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bird's common name comes from its frequent use of cacti as nesting sites. – This differs slightly from what is stated in the lead (general frequenting of cacti, not only for nesting).
I have expanded the in-text reasoning and synced it with the lead. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • published in 1973, recognize only seven subspecies – Why "only"? In the previous sentences it was stated that seven are generally accepted. Where there more before this study?
Only removed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • generally two at a time instead of the more typical clutch of three to five, – The word "clutch" is unnecessary here imo, simply "the more typical three to five" is sufficient.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A notable difference that can assist in identification of the cactus wren is the white tail band seen in flight. – This is not mentioned in the general description. If it is notable indeed, then I think it should. The wording "the white tail band" furthermore suggests that this has been mentioned already, but I don't see where.
Ah right you are, I have added that. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Figure caption: Note the primary flight feathers, which can be differentiated from secondary flight feathers by their increased translucence and decreased barring. – This info was not provided in the main text?
Caption cleaned up. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crown – please link/explain.
 Done CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cornell ornithologists – Institutions are generally not mentioned when citing research in Wikipedia. Is there a specific reason for this case? If so, it should be made clear why Cornell is warrants mention, otherwise the reader is left wondering.
Since the ornithologists are being directly quoted, and its not universally described as such, attribution is being provided inline. This was added at the behest of a previous reviewer, I could change it back I guess? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a distinctive greeting call between pair members, where they spread their wings and tails and give a harsh call. – I'm not sure about this wording, two times "call" … maybe replace the first instance of "call" with "ceremony"? This would encompass the body displays as well.
 Done A nice suggestion, thanks. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Young are born asynchronously – hatch asynchronously? Maybe elaborate a bit on this, not sure if everybody will understand what this means. How much time between the first and last hatch?
I have foudn and added the timeline. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leucocytozoon sp. – "sp." should not be in italics.
 Done Good catch. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anderson and Anderson – Why do we have author names here but not elsewhere?
Author attribution was provided in niche cases where generalizations shouldn't be pulled from the data. For example, the nest distance example was one extreme result from A & A's study, which they thought was important, but was not indicative of all such occurrences. I also have cited A & A more specifically in some cases, as I take their work to be the single best source that exists on the subject. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: I believe I have either taken care of or commented on most issues. If followup is needed, just let me know! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (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/Cactus_wren/archive1&oldid=935983692"