Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pied Currawong/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 21:15, 17 November 2009 [1].

Pied Currawong

[edit]
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is thoroughly comprehensive and is fully referenced with inlined sources. It has had a lookover by several other editors. Any tweaks that may come up can be readily and quickly fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Mate I reckon she's ready to go. But someone dunno the diffrence between a pine tree and a peppercorn tree! Amandajm (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a native plant snob..they all be furriners ta me. ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't spose you'd like me jacarandas and camphor laurel either! Amandajm (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The former has merit...the latter..we-ell...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment minor thing, "Higgins" doesn't have a first name for the second entry under references. Mm40 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Do the infobox images intentionally lack alt text because (as the subject and the range of the subject) they are explained in the article? (The other images have good alts.)
  • No dab links or dead external links—good, good.
  • Mmm, picnic time!

--an odd name 16:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Although mentioned as a relative, the omission of the Grey Currawong from the section on similar species seems nothing short of glaring. The race melanoptera of the Grey is, at least from my guidebook, very difficult to tell from the Pied.
I re-read Higgins, which comes across as pretty dismissive of confusing them, but you are right about melanoptera - the lack of white primaries is the key here. Duly added.Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will have a more in depth look later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a couple remarks:
  • Its binomial names were derived from the Latin strepera, meaning "noisy", and graculina for resembling a Jackdaw. - Missing word?
  • The more southern the population of Pied Currawongs, the lighter the overall plumage (from black to a greyish black) is, the larger the body size, and the shorter the bill. - I had to read this a couple times to understand it fully. Could this be reworded a bit?
Yeah, this segment has done my head in. It was "The overall plumage lightens (from black to a greyish black), body size increases and the bill slightly shortens as one moves from north to south. The amount of white plumage in the tail increases, but on the wing decreases" before - I was (am) trying to describe how the bird gradually changes in its plumage and attributes from north to south, however I have had a block doing so. I will ask another helper presently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little known, there is some doubt over whether ashbyi is a distinct subspecies or a colour morph of nebulosa. - What's little known? Confusing wording here.

–Juliancolton | Talk 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subspecies ashbyi is little known. I will reword. I have reworded to:
"There is some doubt over whether ashbyi, which is little known, is a distinct subspecies or a colour morph of nebulosa." - could substitute ", about which little is known," for the segment in question if you felt it would flow better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, comments and declaration A nice article from an experienced FA writer. I am a fellow member of the Bird Project, so I'm declaring a COI, although I haven't edited this article. Most of my queries were dealt with at an informal project review prior to this FAC, but a few that I missed or are new additions follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In lead It is well known for its melodious calls, from which its common name is derived - The "It" is a bit detached from its subject, perhaps "This species" or similar? (done)
  • In northwestern Victoria, the Black Winged Currawong - Black-winged? (d'oh! done)
  • The Pied Currawong has been implicated in the spread of weeds by consuming and dispersing fruit and seed.[33] In the first half of the twentieth century, they... - Para starts with "The" but reverts to "they" thereafter (tried 'The species...' as a group sort of noun to distinguish...)
  • Pied Currawongs have been known to abandon nests once cuckoos have visited, including the existing currawong young - Reads oddly to a Brit, perhaps Pied Currawongs have been known to desert nests once cuckoos have visited, abandoning the existing currawong young? (yes, better)
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), except that it's missing for the infobox image. Please add alt text by specifying {{Taxobox}}'s parameters |image_alt= and |range_map_alt=. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (done)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
  • The lead says "The Pied Currawong is well known for its melodious calls, from which its common name is derived", but the taxonomy section states "The precise derivation of term currawong itself is unclear; the most likely antecedent is the word garrawaŋ from the indigenous Jagera language from the Brisbane region, although the Darug word gurawaruŋ from the Sydney basin is a possibility". These don't seem entirely consistent, either in terms of MOS (the lead should summarise the body text) or in terms of facts (unless an ethnolignuist has determined that 'garrawaŋ ' or 'gurawaruŋ' are themselves onomatopoetic). Can someone clarify? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is tricky. None of the sources mantion the word onomatopoiec, even though that is obviously what is meant. Many aboriginal languages of eastern Australia are extinct in terms of speakers, and both the languages mentioned are included in this group. There is no source from the 18th or 19th century spelling out exactly where the word came from, hence it is speculative. I do see your point about marrying the lead and the body of the text though, and have had a go at reconciling them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*A suggestion re an issue raised above: instead of "...the lighter the overall plumage (from black to a greyish black) is...", simply have "...the lighter the overall plumage,..." the bracketed text, if absolutely essential, could be a separate sentence, but i don't think it is needed to give the gist of this.
done
*Related to the above. Can someone explain why the section on subspecies comes before the description of the species? That doesn't seem a logical sequence of information for a lay reader, for whom a description of the creature in question would be more important and more general in nature than a description of subspecies, which is less important and more specialised. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perennial problem with alot of bio articles. "Subspecies" as such belongs in taxonomy. We made the decision a while ago to place the Taxonomy section before the Description section because taxonomy defines what and where classification-wise it is, and (more importantly), one often wants to place photos in the description section, however the first section after the lead is often next to the lower portion of the taxobox on the RHS, which hampers image placement. We have alot of bird articles laid out the same way. I also see the lead as an overview which at least allows the reader to get an overall picture and hence not naive to what the bird actually looks like when they get to the first section. I am not a fan of splitting sections of naturally related material, and the other problem is transferring notes on subspecies to description, which means subspecies get mentioned in two segments, both taxonomy and description, also reduplicative. Ultimately, this way is not perfect by any means but the most satisfactory as far as I can see. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A description was there of sorts but unformatted. I have now formatted. The book has a map and Higgins, Peter Jeffrey, John M. Peter, and S. J. Cowling are the editors and main compilers of information. I have cited what I am able. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the name of the person who made the map, whatever Wikipedia user that was (the "author" of the image). Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formatted now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 17 November 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/Pied_Currawong/archive1&oldid=1046369497"