Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red warbler/archive1

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 via FACBot (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2018 [1].

Red warbler

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a cute little bird from Central America - so far birds from outside anglophone areas are a tad underrepresented, so here goes. It is comprehensive (as far as we know) and prose is ok (I think). In any case, we'll try and fix any issues pronto. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

Sure looks cute, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have much diversity in images for this bird, but I wonder if this photo[2] could be added? It shows the grey patch of C. r. melanauris better than the taxobox image, and is sharper, so it isn't wholly redundant.

I have replaced the taxobox image with it. Agree it is better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the name of the supposedly nominate subspecies ruber is not spelled the same way as the specific name (rubra)?

A hangover from when it was in its old genus, which was masculine. Changed now (IOC has subspecific rubra as well) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good, seems you missed the taxobox image caption. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the meaning of the other subspecies names?

melanauris means with dark ears and is half greek half latin. ~~Will get pages and add later~~ added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added info on rowleyi MeegsC (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"soon after its independence" add date for context?

Added date of independence MeegsC (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"which was assigned to the genus Setophaga" You could write the full binomial here, otherwise the specific name isn't mentioned until far down.

Done. MeegsC (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and pink-headed warblers" Link at first mention.

Move wikilink to first mention. MeegsC (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and their common ancestor diverged from a lineage" When?

No idea; the study doesn't give a date, or even a date range. MeegsC (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where the subspecies originally described as species? If so, should be mentioned, also when they were lumped.

C. r. melanauris and C. r. rowleyi were described as subspecies, so weren't lumped. Clarified in article. MeegsC (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Its legs are flesh-colored, and its flesh-colored bill" What exactly is meant by "flesh coloured"? Can a more precise description be found?

changed former to red-brown and later to pinkish-gray, with ref.

You give scientific names for some other species mentioned under description, but nowhere else. Should be consistent.

Removed scientific names for other species; no need for them here, particularly as species are wikilinked. I've left the names that would apply if various subspecies were to be split. MeegsC (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"its slightly darker wings and tail" Darker red? They look grey or brown in photos, so could be more specific.

See I would assume that "slightly darker" meant same colour. Anyway, I found another ref that describes it as "dusky" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The feathers of this species contain alkaloids" Seems this would be relevant under behaviour? Is this to protect from predators? In which case, not only humans would avoid eating them...

the info is pretty redimentary. I dug around and found some more details, but any other assumptions would be OR. Will see if any conclusions or covering statements can be found. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the red warbler has three disjunct populations" Do these correspond to the subspecies? if so, could be stated.

Well, they are indicated as such in the taxonomy section, but we can repeat them lower down in the habitat and distribution section too if you think we should. Or say it there instead. MeegsC (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could add something like "corresponding to the three subspecies" for clarity, I imagined it was the case, but it might be harder for people skimming the article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me now, as has been pointed out below also, could be nice to add anything on predators if possible. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Could you check the Escalante and Daly citation?

added title

I'd love some more pictures, but if that's all we have, that'll have to do!

Do you think this one is worth adding? It does show some habitat, and has an appropriate license.

I do- I like it! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded and added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the red and pink-headed warblers were each others' closest relative" Why past tense?

Changed to present tense.

Are "trills" and "warbles" jargon, I wonder?

the first is a high pitched vibration call and the second a series of soft notes. I had just known them but then again I am a birdwatcher. We only have a general article on birdcalls (Bird vocalization - already linked just before) and wiktionary isn't much help either. Not sure the best way to go about it for laypeople Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably worrying about nothing. I know what they mean, I was just thinking that others may not. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It is fairly common to common in the interior and on adjacent slopes" Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I'm struggling to follow this.

"fairly common" and "common" are used as distinct descriptors, with the former being less common than "common" but commoner than "uncommon". I can't see the source page though.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was struggling to understand what "the interior and adjacent slopes" meant. Interior of what? Adjacent to what? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I've tried to clarify a bit; is it clearer now? MeegsC (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"hover gleans" sounds like jargon

Modified slightly; is that better?

Yes, much better. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we have any information about human interactions/uses or the bird's appearances in human culture?

nothing found to date Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of lifespan - I assume there's no information available?

That's correct; lifespan is unknown.

There's some mention of predators, mixed flocks, and competitors with which it feeds; I wonder if we could be more specific about these things? I'd certainly be interested to know!

added a bit (see below for specifics) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it! Looks very good to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. A little light on some details, but I am happy to take your word for it that this reflects the literature. I do wonder whether there might be more out there in Spanish (or other local languages), but appreciate that this is a tricky question! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my Spanish is pretty good. And I've looked for references in that language too! MeegsC (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good; thanks for the clarification! Josh Milburn (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jens Lallensack

Happy to review this article. Its reads extremely well, great job with the prose. It could be more comprehensive, however. Comments below:

Why was File:Ergaticus ruber.jpg removed? I think that one is still a valuable addition.

In two minds about this. I replaced the taxobox image with a more in-focus one. If I re-add this one, what am I implying it has that other photos don't have? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it shows parts of the plumage not visible on the other images, including the back and the upper side of wings and tail. But the decision is yours, of course.

good point. readded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: better to link Mexico.

I thought we generally didn't link to countries... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, these are the little differences between language versions.

mitochondrial and nuclear DNA needs wiki links.

done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A comprehensive 2010 paper by Irby Lovette and colleagues analysing mitochondrial and nuclear DNA of the wood-warblers – what is a "wood-warbler"? Term should be shortly explained if you want to keep it.

Actually they are New World warblers - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The adult red warbler is hard to confuse with any other bird species – really with all bird species, or only with those present in its range?

the latter - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the scarlet tanager and summer tanager have similar mostly-red plumage but are larger with thick conical bills – You describe the bill shape of similar species, but not for the red warbler itself. Should be added to the description if possible.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information on how males and females differ from each other in both color and size. If they are identical, this needs to be mentioned also.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike other species in the same habitat zone, it tends to sing only during bright morning hours during the breeding season; regardless of season, it does not sing – and even its calling frequency decreases – in cloudy weather. – A bit difficult to read; I would suggest splitting the sentence in two. Also, I would not have "in cloudy weather" at the end of the second sentence, as this is the most important information, and you cannot understand what the sentence is all about until you read it. I would suggest "Regardless of season, it does not sing in cloudy weather, when even its calling frequency decreases" or something similar.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly common to common in the interior and on adjacent slopes – is this referring to the Sierra Madre del Sur? Maybe add "In the latter," to make this clear?

can't see all the source - @MeegsC: can you shed some light.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the 16th century, Friar Bernardino de Sahagún had reported that a … – This paragraph appears under "Behavior", but it is not about behavior at all but interaction with humans, maybe move it to its own section?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it seldom associates with mixed-species flocks – earlier you mentioned that it "sometimes joins mixed-species flocks". Is seldom the same as sometimes? Maybe use the same word.

"sometimes" can be highly ambiguous in English, covering everything from "often" to "seldom". changed to "occasionally" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When describing the nest in detail, you mention the important fact that it is not a typical bird nest but a roofed nest only at the very end. I would mention this fact right before or after the section starts with "The femail alone builds the nest". It would make it much easier to follow the detailed description of how the female builds it.

The mention "over-shaped" implies a roofed structure, so not at end. moved up a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it feeds alongside other birds with no signs of conflict, displaying no hostility towards other species with which it competes – this is somehow conflicting with an observation by Elliott cited in the neotropical.birds.cornell.edu web page: Elliott once observed a pair forage alongside a pair of Slate-throated Redstarts (Myioborus miniatus) during March, yet on another occasion he also saw one male and two female Red Warblers chase off an Empidonax flycatcher that entered their territory. I suggest to add this observation for balance.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A follow up question: You describe its behavior against competing species, but what about members of the same species that cross its territory?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I feel that the article is not as comprehensive as it could be. All of the points below are covered by the https://neotropical.birds.cornell.edu web page, so it should not be a problem to expand accordingly.
- When does the species mould?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Anything about predation?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Courtship display behavior?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Territory size, and how territorial are they?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- When, after hatching, are the young fully grown?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Iris color, also important. Maybe even bill, tail, wing chord, tarsus lengths, as these are standard measurements (although I understand if you prefer to keep them out for readability reasons).

iris colour added. I have never added the bill, tail, wing chord or tarsus lengths as I feel these are too specialised for (and of little interest to) a lay reader Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Not sure here, but something to thing about: Add what we don't know about this species, to show why further research is needed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that is generally hard to add unless stated somewhere...and could hold true for the majority of bird species I suspect... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All resolved, many thanks. Supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

Corrected issues

Returning to FAC work. As was long my typical habit here, I'm primarily focusing on references and reference formatting. But I have a couple other questions on this one.

Poor little bird had a rough taxonomic history. If it spent time assigned to Basileuterus, Sylvia, and Parus, should those be reflected in its taxobox synonym list?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth changing the range map to color-code the disjunct ranges to the three subspecies?

yes ~~it would be good - annoyingly I am having some trouble downloading the image to edit. Not sure why..~~ ~~Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)~~ have sorted map out Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No C. r. rowleyi photo available, as we have the other two illustrated, and a bunch of space without images?

added one more image... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now the thankless stuff...

Capitalization systems should be consistent. Generally, that means sentence case for journal article titles and title case for the journals themselves and for book titles. That appears to be the standard set here, so I'll treat exceptions as errors. If you've opted to standardize to a different format, then a correspondingly different set of references have capitalization issues. Some of these sources treat "Red Warbler" as a proper noun. Some don't. I've opted to follow the lead of the source text when applying capitalization rules to each title.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That probably means the journal title for Swainson 1827 should be given in title case, although I seem to recall that exceptions have sometimes been granted for the very long titles of these 19th century natural science periodicals. I won't oppose on this one, although MOS:COLON does suggest that the leading space be removed before the colon (as that hasn't been considered standard for a century or so).

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moore 1937 should have the article title given in sentence case.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orr and Webster 1968 should have the article title given in sentence case.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lanning, Marshall, and Shiflett 1990 should have the article title given in sentence case.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stone 1919 should have the article title given in sentence case.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Escalante and Daly 1994 should have the journal title given in title case.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debboun, Frances, and Strickman 2007 should have the book title given in title case.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smith 1909 should have the article title given in sentence case.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remsen and Robinson 1990 should have the article title given in sentence case.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgway and Friedmann should ideally have an OCLC number, as it predates the ISBN system. I believed the linked scan is of OCLC 663445305.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, all ISBNs should be presented as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. The only ones I see that are a problem are Liddel and Scott 1980 and Simpson 1979, both of which need to be converted from ISBN-10.

both of these books predate 2007, which is when isbn went from 10 to 13 digits...unless one just sticks the same 3 digits in front?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All ISBN-10s fit in the 978- prefix of ISBN-13 space, although conversion does require adjusting the last digit (which is a checksum). No one wants to do math by hand, though, which is why there's a helpful converter (for most ISBNs, anyway). Best practice, and the recommendation of the International ISBN Agency, is to up-convert all ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s (for, among other things, compatibility with the EAN/IAN system). Also, it makes everything match and look pretty. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cool/stil learning new things/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Providing the publication location for book-format sources is optional, but longstanding consensus is that it is all-or-nothing. Most such sources cited here provide a publisher location, so I'll be treating exceptions as errors.

Books published in London do not have that publication location presented consistently ("London" versus "London, UK"). The APA eliminated the "well-known city" rule in its 6th edition, but I wouldn't fault you for retaining it and just going with "London" here. If you apply the APA 6th edition guidance, then US states can be abbreviated to two-letter codes, but countries should not be; complicating this issue, they recommend "London, England" rather than any use of "United Kingdom". Whatever you decide regarding country format should be consistently applied to Liddell and Scott 1980 and to Stattersfield et al. 1998.

removed country from well-known cities.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howell and Webb 1995 lacks a publisher location.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson and Chalif 1999 lacks a publisher location.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cramp 1977 lacks a publisher location.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher location for Dreelin 2014 is given as "Ithaca, NY, USA". The USA is unnecessary.

I can't find this now....so done (I think) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you opt to follow APA 6th edition policy, then Beletsky 2007 will need to be updated to show "San Francisco, CA". If you cite London simply as "London", then this one is fine as is.

followed latter option Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield 1968 is missing a comma from "Oaxaca, Mexico". I even checked the article because journal titles are sometimes special snowflakes with punctuation, but it's there in the original.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No prose analysis, at least at the moment. This does feel a little... thin, but I'm well aware of the difficulties of working on a narrow subject that has garnered comparatively little attention. Still, I'm curious if there's more available on its involvement with mixed-species flocks (what species?) and if there's any information on predation. Given it's alkaloid defense, I'm curious if there's been any discussion of what does eat it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

expanding a bit - see previous reviewer's comments, which we're working through Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support. It's a little sad that the rowleyi subspecies doesn't have an available photo, but that's surely not a reason to oppose promotion of the article in its current state. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, can you check other notes--Anass (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Anass Badou

Hello, I am a contributor from Arabic Wikipedia and I am working on translating this article. I think the size of the artic le is small. Can you add other information if it is? I also advise you to add images photos, so can you upload this one here?--Anass (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

we have expanded the article. ~~Sadly that photo does not have a suitable licence~~ (oops/my bad). It is not bad but the bird is partly obscured by a twig. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Cas, I suggested we upload the same picture, which appears to be appropriately licensed. It says it can be used for any purpose, even commercially. MeegsC (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded and added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other note: Can you create this article [3]-Anass (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add some informations from this article hère [4]-Anass (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

material from that article has already been included. Have you seen something else specific that is not in the article? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i find here that Scarlet flycatcher, and Orange piranga are Nearby species to Red warbler-Anass (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't mention them unless a source mentions them together for some reason. The scarlet flycatcher is also red but occurs far to the south Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i think that you can add more images, because there are a lot of pictures about this bird in his Commons Category, also, can you add more categories if its possible, also in found some informations here so what do you think?--Anass (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here some references about Cardellina rubra--Anass (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I think that you can also create this template--Anass (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The EOL page has little in it, and many of the biodiversity library pages are lists or mere mentions. Have had a bit of a look..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i found this informations :

This species has a very large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is very large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern.

--Anass (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that is in the conservation section. How would you add the relevant bits? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand--Anass (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added the fraction decline bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, look now at others notes--Anass (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can you add Commons Category and Wikispecies Templates?--Anass (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC:I would recommend that you add other information about history, can you read this article and try to add important points or a suitable summary if possible here--Anass (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anass: we've already included the information from that article! What do you think is missing? MeegsC (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: In my opinion there is a lot of informations that can be added to make the article more comprehensive. Read also what is here. Have you added all this?--Anass (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anass: Well, I guess I respectfully disagree. We've included all of that information already! Have you read the article? MeegsC (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC and Casliber: Yes, I read the article and translated it to the Arabic and nominated it as a featured article, but the colleagues rejected it because it is small in size and the information is low. Can you develop it further by adding more references and more explanations?--Anass (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anass:, in English wikipedia, we can't invent information. If it's not out there already in other sources, we can't add it to the article. As with many species in Central America (and many other places in the world), there's a lot about this bird that isn't known. We can't add what isn't known! We've scoured the available sources to put in everything we could find. If that's not enough for Arabian wikipedia — or English wikipedia, for that matter — so be it! MeegsC (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: In my opinion, keeping the article good is better than being nominated as a featured article due to the lack of references and information--Anass (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anass, can you provide the diffs where you nominated the Arabic version? I'd like to compare it to what you were working from (in terms of the English article) at the time. We've added material since you first brought it up, so I presume you've enlarged it over there during their FA process too? This article is of a comparable size and depth to some other biology FAs. We can't add information that does not exist in spurces. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anass: Just out of curiosity, what information do you feel is missing? What do you want to know about this bird that you can't learn from the article? MeegsC (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: i want to know for exemple the relationship with humans and natural threats and detailed description and related species and vocalizations, Please clarify these things better with the addition of the history paragraph in detail from the previous article--Anass (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anass:, these things are all in the article. I'm really confused; you say you've read it, but it doesn't appear you have! MeegsC (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: I have read them. Say these things in separate paragraphs and add pictures, videos and sounds--Anass (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anass:: Do you have access to videos or recording for this species? I don't see any in Wikipedia Commons. I can't add what isn't available! As for "saying these things in separate paragraphs", there is a section entitled "Description" that presents a detailed description of the bird, with the adult, immature and juvenile plumages each described in separate paragraphs. There is a section entitled "Voice" that talks about vocalizations. The "Taxonomy" section talks about related species, and there's a separate paragraph in the "Description" section that talks about other species you might confuse it with. The "Parasites and predators" section talks about natural threats, and the "Conservation and threats" talks about human interactions. Each of the things you say is missing is already in the article. As I said, I'm mystified that you still maintain they aren't! MeegsC (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: ::Search Google for free photos and videos--Anass (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

Just a couple of nitpicks

Like all New World warblers, the red warbler is an insectivore. appears in the lead but I can't see it in the body text it is supposedly summarising, nor can I see a source. Furthermore, although US sources often give the impression that breeding wood warblers are exclusively insectivorous, some at least take seeds or fruit in their winter quarters, and pine warbler certainly eats seeds even in the US

I removed Like all New World warblers as not in body and not germane to article really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps link iris?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Not sure if anybody reviewed the references above, but I had a look regardless. All of the citations are to what I would consider high-quality reliable sources. The vast majority of them are journal articles and books, with a few to websites; all of them appear reliable. In addition, they are all formatted well and the online references show up as working properly on the link-checker tool. In short, I found no issues with the sourcing of the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's comments support

A few comments, nitpicks mostly:

endemic to the highlands of Mexico, north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Does this apply when the range of one subspecies is to the south and west of the narrowest point of the isthmus?

@Sabine's Sunbird: Hmm. That's directly from the source, which says "Endemic to highlands N of Isthmus. What do you suggest? MeegsC (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English jeweller and naturalist William Bullock and his son spent time in Mexico soon after its independence in 1821, do we know when they were in Mexico with any more precision?

According to this journal article, he was there in 1823. I'll add the link to our article. MeegsC (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of taxonomy jumps from genus-level relationships to subspecies and back to genus again? Maybe move the bit about its closest relative up above subspecies?

I've moved this information up a few paragraphs; is this better? MeegsC (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

y isolated two alkaloids in preliminary investigations of the feathers.[31] These render the bird unpalatable; humans find it inedible I wonder if this could be elaborated a bit - humans as a rule don't eat anything with feathers still on!

The alkaloids make the birds unpalatable, not the feathers. I've tried to clarify that; did I succeed? MeegsC (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nestlings, which make a rapid, high-pitched peeping call as an adult approaches carrying food,[24] fledge within 10–11 days of hatching this sentence covers very different ideas and should be separated.

done MeegsC (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few odd word choices, such as 11 days may transpire between... transpire? Sure something simpler can be found? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

changed to the wordier "there may be a gap of as many as 11 days between..." MeegsC (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The bit about the isthmus still bothers me a touch but I can't think of a way around, otherwise good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.