Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Przevalski's nuthatch/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 Ian Rose 13:29, 29 May 2014 [1].

Przevalski's nuthatch

[edit]
Nominator(s): Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found this topic at FAC at the French Wikipedia. I believe even the most ghastly subjects deserve decent articles so I started a translation since we only had a bare stub. I didn't know the psychic toll it would take to stare into the face of horror day after day but I emerged from the other side and believe this is now ready for review against the criteria. There are unfortunately no usable photographs at this point, though the author of the French article, User:Totodu74 (whose contributions made mine possible), is attempting to contact the photographer who snapped the second image listed in external links, to ask for a CC release. You might notice that the article is a bit short on certain areas that often get treatment. This is the result of there simply being no information out there, on, for example, feeding, nesting, breeding, moulting and so on. I learned a ton translating and expanding this, as only such a research and writing process in a topic area you've never focused can impart. Hope you find it interesting (and not too horrifying).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

I reviewed this before it came here, so not much to add now. A few nitpicks before I support

  • nominate species —I'm not sure there is such a thing, and the link goes to "nominate subspecies". former nominate subspecies perhaps? or rephrase
  • One recognizable feature of Przevalski's Nuthatch is that they lack the eyestripe common to most nuthatch species.—"it lacks", or pluralise Nuthatch
  • The specimen was captured on the outskirts of a forest, on a ridge between two valleys, where he stood on a dead branch from which he launched in pursuit of insects in flight —"it" not "he". There is no indication that the nuthatch was a s male, and "he" conjures up an image of Ludlow leaping off the branch to catch flies
  • Your capitalisation of journal titles is inconsistent. Even if you have followed the original, they should all be sentence-case here
Nice work, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Thanks for looking again, and the help. I've addressed all of the issues above. "Nominate species", by the way, is used, à la a few thousand Google book hits, but certainly not as commonly as "nominate subspecies". I have modified in all places.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

(One recognizable feature of Przevalski's Nuthatch is that it lacks the eyestripe common to most nuthatch species.) - why is this in parentheses? I think we can lose them.... ok.
Hey Cas, thanks for taking a look. It wouldn't do terrible violence to remove them but I really do think it's properly a parenthetical. The rest of the paragraph is a general description of nuthatches – an overview of traits shared between species of the genus. The line about this nuthatch is a qualifying, explanatory remark breaking away from the general to comment on the specific.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Litang leads to a disambig page.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't start a para with an abbreviated scientific name.

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Otherwise looking pretty good - sorry re delay in returning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Both fixed, thanks Cas.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comments. A very good article. Just a couple of minor quibbles.

  • "turning to a rich cinnamon on the underparts that intensifies on the sides of the breast." I had to read this twice as "that" appears to refer to underparts. I would suggest "turning on the underparts to a rich cinnamon that intensifies on the sides of the breast."
  • Hey Dudley, thanks very much for coming by. I've changed it to "that intensifies in color..." I think that that addition provides the context so that what "that" refers to is clear. Do you think that that's so? I fiddled with rearranging it to some form of "turning on the underparts..." but the more I read it, the more it sounded strange to me (though it could be something like that effect you get when you say a word over and over and you reach a point of dissonance where it loses it meaning?) Anyway it feels like we're implying with that phrase that the underparts are a lamp were switching on, we're doing something perverse to the bird, or Timothy Leary is stopping by.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bird is endemic to areas in southeastern Tibet and west central China, where it is found in eastern Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan among other areas". Wordy and repeats "areas". Perhaps "China, including eastern Qinghai..."

Dudley Miles (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I've been thinking about that, having learned about that discussion just a few days ago. I suppose I've been wondering if there's going to be a push back once large scale moves and article reformation begins but the edits are not difficult, and easily reversible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Imzadi1979: Done. I moved all the articles on other birds that are mentioned in this article as well, so the changes would produce no redlinks or need piping to articles that should be moved anyway. I am only not performing the move of this now because I'm not sure if that would play well with this open FAC (or cause a problem with the bot), but the closer can move it, or I'll move it immediately after a close, regardless of result.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • You have some duplinks. Pls review using this script and see if any are really necessary.
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume Canadensis is supposed to link to the dab page and not something more specialised?
unlinked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone conduct a source review for formatting/reliability? If no-one above can volunteer soon, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC.
I checked the following for accuracy and phrasing: OED, de Hoyo, Harrap, Jobling, Dresser and Collar Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "A molecular study conducted in 2014 may provide some clarity" is uncited. Do I gather that the info re. Pasquet et al in the following paragraph is to do with that study? If so I'd suggest tying them together more clearly.
reffed, my edits, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2014 (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/Przevalski%27s_nuthatch/archive1&oldid=1166570450"