Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tufted jay/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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 8 April 2024 [1].

Tufted jay

[edit]
Nominator(s): grungaloo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tufted jay is an member of the crow family and is endemic to a small region of the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico. It has been of particular interest to some in regards to its origin due to it's limited range and distance from other members of its genus. There is limited literature on it, but I have made the best use of what is available. grungaloo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

First comments now, more later.

  • was first described by Robert Thomas Moore in 1935 based on a type locality – Descriptions are based on type specimens, not localities
    • Fixed
  • Moore gave them – you switch from singular to plural here. Also elsewhere in the article.
    • Switched all to singular (I think)
  • binomial name – since we are writing for a general readership (and especially with birds, we want that as many folks as possible can appreciate them, right?), we should avoid technical terms whenever possible. Here, you could use "scientific name" instead, and link that to Binomial nomenclature.
    • Fixed
  • Cyanocorax dickeyi, with the species name being in honour of – The species name is the whole binomen. What you mean is the specific name.
    • Fixed
  • The tufted jay is monotypic. – Again, avoid technical terms; just write that no subspecies are recognized.
    • Fixed
  • For the first paragraph of "Taxonomy and systematics", the first description has some interesting details that could be added; e.g. that this species was not encountered in extensive collection efforts not far away, demonstrating its limited range. Maybe such info would make the article a bit more interesting to read, instead of just listing the standard information point by point. But this is just an idea, it is up to you.
    • I like it! I tried adding it in, I'm not convinced I worded it well so if you have suggestions on rewording I'm happy to hear.
  • Other members of the genus occur as far north as Costa Rica, over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away from the tufted jays' range.[1] In 1944, it was proposed that they were most closely related to the white-tailed jay – this is saying that other members were most closely related to the white-tailed jay, which does not make sense.
    • Fixed, called out tufted jay
  • Several theories were proposed for why this was, – "hypotheses", not "theories"? Also, "why this was" is very unspecific; why what was, exactly?
    • Changed, and swapped it to "for why this relation might exist despite the geographical separation"
  • link cladogram
    • Done
  • The IUCN page has much more details on threats that could be added (click there on "threats in detail")
    • Expanded
  • State the size (length, weight); you say "medium sized bird" but that is relative.
    • Added
  • It seems that the article could be even more comprehensive; for example, I see several aspects in the Birds of the World page that are not mentioned here (e.g., flight; that the young are fed cooperatively; how long do the juveniles remain in the group, and more). I would suggest to have another close look at the sources to improve coverage. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • also known as the painted jay – information does not appear in the cited source?
    • Added source to Haemig who uses that name. It's the Spanish translation of the name "Urraca Pinta".
  • The tufted jay, also known as the painted jay – according to Avibase [2], there is another synonym (Dickey's Jay). No need to bold any of them in the lead imo.
    • Added and de-bolded
  • based on a type specimen from Mexico – the wording is still not good. A type specimen was not found somewhere, it was selected when erecting the species. Actually, the description used 7 specimens?
    • Tried a rewrite, let me know what you think
  • A more commonly held theory – hypothesis
    • Change, dropped "more commonly" too.
  • was relict of a common ancestor – What does "relict" mean here precisely? Is the tufted jay identical with this ancestral taxon?
    • Rewrote, it's presumed to have descended from a common ancestor so not identical.
  • A more commonly held theory was – With past tense, you are implying that this (and the other) hypothesis is now outdated, but you do not state what the current hypothesis is.
    • I've changed these tenses. There's no meta-discussion I could find on which is right, so presumably they're all still open. No source seems to expressly deny any other too. The closest is Haemig who introduced the pre-Columbian trade theory, but even that doesn't go as far as to outright deny the others.
  • Other members of the genus occur as far north as Costa Rica, over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away from the tufted jay's range – This does not seem to be the case. What about the Purplish-backed jay, for example?
    • I've changed this to reference Amadon, who specifies that the tufted and white-tailed jay are 3000 miles apart. The other cite was from Haemig who was comparing it to the northern-most range of "South American" cyanocoraxes, which I think confused things.
  • caption: A juvenile tufted jay with a smaller crest and lacking the white spot above the eye. – But the shown bird has a small white spot above the eye?
    • Yeah on second look I can't explain that, and I'm not convinced it's a juvenile. I've replaced the image with another available one from Flickr that shows and adult. I also found an image of a flock of them and added it to the socialization section.
  • The inside of their beak is flesh-coloured, but this fades after a few months. – I don't understand this. You mean the color when looking into their open mouth? Fading to what color? A few months after what? After hatching?
    • Crossin says "the basal portions of the mandibles are flesh color", I've tried to make it more clear in the article what it refers to without using that technical language. I also added the timing and what it fades to.
  • This call can be heard when feeding, by nesting females – This literally means "Nesting females can hear the call", which makes no sense.
    • Rewrote, hopefully clearer
  • endemic – link
    • Added
  • In the breeding season, they can be found in ravines and nearer water sources. – "near water sources"?
    • Changed
  • During the breeding season, flocks will work cooperatively to feed the nesting female. – Does this mean there is only one breeding female per flock? (the nesting female seems to imply that).
    • Added a line to clarify this, but yes there's a single breeding pair per flock.
  • The tufted jay is possibly descended from a population of white-tailed jays which were brought Mexico by trade between pre-Columbian societies. – I think that, this hypothesis as you describe it cannot be true, alone for the reason that speciation does not work that fast. Are you possibly misreading the source?
  • If you are looking for modern discussions on the old hypothesis, it might be worth a try to 1) search for the article that proposed the hypothesis in Google Scholar, 2) click on "cited by", 3) and see through the list of papers cites (and possibly discusses) it. This way, the book "Avian invasions" turned up, which briefly describes Haemig's hypothesis and suggested that a genetic analysis would prove or disprove him. We now have this analysis (your cladogram). So I think the most sensible way to do it would be to present these different hypotheses in a historical context, making clear that they were based on the assumption that the tufted and the white-tailed were closely related, which is now questioned by the genetic analyses (I mean, give the genetic analysis more room, it is the by far most solid evidence available to date; but I wouldn't go as far as to state that the old hypothesis is now disproved, for this we would need another source that makes this interpretation).
  • a study of the morphological characteristics of the tufted jay and white-tailed jay demonstrated – "demonstrated" is a bit strong a word, no? "Suggested" would be more suitable; you cannot have certainty with morphological characters.
  • I am still not quite through, but we have to sort out the taxonomy section first, as I am not convinced here yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a rewrite of this section based on your three suggestions above. I've also rewritten a portion of the lead to better reflect this. Let me know what you think! grungaloo (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. But I think there is a mistake. You write In 1979, Paul Haemig proposed that the white-tailed jay had been brought to Mexico by trade between pre-Columbian societies, and that the tufted jay was derived from that population, although this theory was problematic because it implied that the two had only been diverging for a few hundred years. – This suggests that Haemig proposed that the white-tailed jay and the tufted jay are sister species. However, he did not say this as far as I can see. Instead, he seems to be of the opinion that the white-tailed and the tufted are the same species (even though he is not sure whether they can still interbreed or not). The book "avian invasions" also states that Haemig (1979) proposes that these two are actually the same species. In this light, your addition although this theory was problematic because it implied that the two had only been diverging for a few hundred years does not make sense; if we assume that they are the same species, it is not problematic at all. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've reworded it to call out the same-species theory. I was using the BotW source which doesn't say that expressly. grungaloo (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to check your source "Bonaccorso et al. (2010), p. 27." to understand this a bit better, but that source does not have a page 27? Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed grungaloo (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy looks much better now, but I think some more minor tweaks to the writing should be done:

  • The tufted jay's relation to other members of the Cyanocorax genus has been a subject of interest since its initial description – I am not sure what the information here is; is there any bird whose relationships have not been a subject of interest? Maybe cut this part.
    • Removed
  • In 1935, Moore noted some difficulties with its placement in Cyanocorax, – again not well-enough written imo. You have "difficulties" in plural but only mention one difficulty later. Also, it is not clear what "its placement" refers to. That it belongs to Cyanocorax should not be fraught with difficulties; it rather seems you are hinting at its close affinities to the white-tailed jay that is problematic, but this has not been mentioned yet. Maybe cut this part, too.
    • Removed
  • due to a widely distributed ancestor that had gone extinct. – Since the Tufted jay still lives, its ancestor didn't really went extinct.
    • Removed, I think I was misreading what it meant. Now it just mentions the ancestor.

For the remainder of the article:

  • although a tufted jay may dive at a Steller's jay if it approaches a nest site or during foraging. – The "during foraging" is a bit unclear to me. When tufted jays are foraging, they will dive on the Steller's jays?
    • Rewrote, called out that its the tufted jay that's foraging.
  • and each flock contains only a single breeding pair. – Already mentioned earlier (sorry for my earlier comment where I asked to add this information, I was not aware that it was already mentioned).
    • Actually I think I rewrote after your mention to make it clearer, so no worries!
  • That's all from me now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two more regarding the taxonomy, after a last check there:

Funk

[edit]
  • The images are kind of samey, especially since the one in the taxobox is the same that is used in the compilation image right below it. Can anything be done to avoid this repetition? There are other free photos of the bird on Flickr that might replace one of the duplicates.
  • Likewise, all photos show similar poses, and while not a great image, this one shows a flying individual and how the wings look when spread:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done what I can to bring in different looking pictures, and done another search for any public domain ones that I've missed. Unfortunately there's just not much out there. Let me know what you think of the changes. grungaloo (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better! FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • People mentioned could be presented by occupation, for example it seems odd to state who it was named for with no context at all.
    • Added. I saw this come up at the Markham's storm petrel FAC so wasn't sure which was correct. They're all ornithologists so it might be a bit repetitive.
  • "with the specific name being named after" Name named sounds clunky.
    • Reworded - "being in honour of". I also saw this come up at the Markham's storm petrel FAC, but in this case I think it's ok because Moore explicitly says that the naming is in "tribute" to Dickey's work.
  • Link Cyanocorax at first mention.
    • Done
  • Link white-tailed jay at first mention under taxonomy. Now it is linked first time under description (not counting the cladogram).
    • Done
  • "white-tailed jay (Cyanocorax mysticalis)" You give the scientific name in parenthesis for this species at first mention, but not others, should be consistent.
    • Dropped the scientific name
  • "The white-tailed jay (pictured) is visually similar to the tufted jay" Could add to the caption that the two have incorrectly been considered the same species?
    • Tried a different caption, thoughts?
  • Seems odd they were considered the same species when the other doesn't seem to have a crest? What was the rationale behind that?
    • I've added a footnote explaining Haemig's rational, but basically he figures the colouration is due to Gloger's rule, and the crest is something he considers a "very plastic" characteristic in jays. grungaloo (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how much text is devoted to the issue in the main text, I think it would even be worth to incorporate the footnote into it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done grungaloo (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link molt.
    • Done
  • Also, since this appears to be UK English (you say "colour"), it should be "moult". There may be other UK/US English inconsistencies, which should be checked throughout.
    • Canadian English actually, which afaik doesn't have a preference, but I changed it to moult anyway.
I think that's more or less the same as UK spelling? FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link mobbing.
    • Done
  • You link flock only long after its first mention.
    • Moved up
  • "Juvenile males who do disperse from the flock do so at around 13–18 months of age." I don't think the first "do" is necessary.
    • Removed
  • "namely the Steller's jay" The is unnecessary.
    • Removed
  • Breeding pairs is also only linked long aftr first mention.
    • Moved up
  • Altricial could be explained in parenthesis.
    • Added
  • Missing "is".
    • I'm not sure where?
Oops, fixed it myself. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "notably by those involved in the narcotic cultivation" Why?
    • Reworded
  • An article this length probably only needs a three paragraph intro. I think you could merge the two last short paragraphs.
    • Combined the last two
  • Usually the intro should have the same order of info as the article body, but now you describe the bird before talking about its relationships. Perhaps not a big deal, but I've seen others bring it up.
    • Personally I think having description first makes sense even if it doesn't match the order. In my experience a lot of people looking up birds are most interested in what they look like, so makes sense to open with that to me. I'll change it though if it's a sticking point.

Aa77zz

[edit]
  • The article heavily cites a 1965 master's thesis by Richard Crossin. Theses are not considered as reliable sources. The cites should be replaced by peer reviewed articles.
One possible source is the Birds of the World which is available from the Internet Archive (registration required) here: https://archive.org/details/handbookofbirdso0014unse/page/582/mode/1up

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Reliable sources, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. According to Google Scholar, this thesis has been cited 44 times, including by major bird resources such as handbooks. Given how narrow this topic is, I would argue this counts as "significant scholarly influence" (in fact, it seems to be the most cited publication that is specifically dealing with this species). Another point to consider is whether or not the cited information is uncontroversial; mere observations (for which this source seems to be used for) are generally uncontroversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was basically my reasoning (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Crossin is the go-to for any detailed description on this bird. Other sources also cite Crossin quite a bit, including Birds of the World. My usage of it mostly reflects what other sources were already citing to it, but I used Crossin in these cases so I could pull more detail. Excising Crossin would be possible, but the article would lose some detail. If that's what's needed though I'll give it a go! grungaloo (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy

[edit]
  • Also known as the painted jay and Dickey's jay. Painted jay and Dickey's jay should probably be bold in introduction per WP:BOLDTITLE since they are alternative names for this bird. Other than that I don't see any issues. Comments welcomed FAC here. Volcanoguy 16:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Jens Lallensack pointed out that these shouldn't be bolded actually. "And significant alternative names" - the argument is that these are not significant names at all. In fact, I only found one source each that uses each of these names. They definitely quality as alternative names, but probably not significant. grungaloo (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just see that the WP:WikiProject Birds has this guideline: Alternative common names should be mentioned where appropriate; with bold type in the opening line of the article if they are in wide use, elsewhere in the article (with or without the bold type) if they are less-used. This is usually a matter for individual judgement. So I guess it is up to you if you like to bold or not. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer to not bold here. From what I've seen they're not in wide use. grungaloo (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "A mtDNA study". When did this happen?
    • Added year (2010)
  • "A mtDNA study". Could we have this in full at first mention? mitochondrial DNA. And in the main article.
    • Changed for both mentions
"The following cladogram (simplified from the 2010 mtDNA study)". Either this also needs to be in full or the abbreviation needs to be in brackets after the first mention a little earlier in the paragraph.
Oops, changed to be in full
  • "It is likely descended from an ancestral jay which ranged throughout Central and South America." Perhaps "It" → 'they'?
    • Fixed
  • Link canopy, range
    • Linked
  • "This indicated that the tufted jay and white-tailed jay descended from a common ancestor that once lived throughout Central and South America, and that the visual similarities were the result of convergent evolution." I don't understand. If they "descended from a common ancestor", then that would explain "the visual similarities" and there is no need to assume convergent evolution".
    • I've removed the line about convergent evolution since yeah, it doesn't make sense. I think the author meant that all Central/South American Cyanocorax's descended from a common ancestor, and the tufted and white-tailed jay converged, but that's not expressly stated so I've opted to remove it instead.
  • "This is a commonly held hypothesis by others who have studied the tufted jay." "is" or was?
    • Is, and the mtDNA study supports it so I've left it as is. I did change hypothesis to theory though since it is an official theory, especially with the dna study.
  • "Because of the visual similarities between the tufted jay and the white-tailed jay, some researchers thought that the two must be more closely related than their ranges would suggest." Is this not repeating much of the previous paragraph?
    • I've cut it down: "These similarities led some researchers to hypothesize that the two must be more closely related than their ranges would suggest."
  • "that the tufted jay had descended from a flock that had accidentally been brought to Mexico by a storm". Would that be a flock of white-tailed jays?
    • Added white-tailed jay to the sentence to make it clear
  • "the tufted jay is sister to a clade formed by ..." Define clade in line.
    • Added
  • "due to a widely distributed ancestor." Optional: → 'due to a widely distributed common ancestor.'
    • Changed.
  • "The tufted jay has several calls, with the most common call being a rapid ..." This may flow better without the repetition of "call".
    • Changed, dropped the second "call"
  • "woodland forests". Are there non-woodland forests?
    • Removed "woodland"
  • "they can be found in ravines near water sources." Commonly, rarely, exclusively?
    • Added - commonly
  • Do we have any idea of their life expectancy?
    • Nothing concrete. Birds of the World says "There is no information related to topics such as age at first breeding, life span and survivorship, dispersal, or population regulation for Tufted Jay.", and I couldn't find anything from another source.
I find that information on the lack of information on "age at first breeding, life span and survivorship" interesting. Perhaps include it in the article?
I've added it, I put breeding age in the breeding section, and lifespan in the description
  • "and are 41 cm (16 in) in diameter and 6 cm (2.4 in) deep." Should there be am 'approximately' in there?
    • Added
  • "measure between roughly 36–38 mm (1.4–1.5 in) long and 24–25.4 mm (0.94–1.00 in) wide"; "with between 10,000–20,000 mature individuals." See MOS:RANGES "Do not mix en dashes with between or from."
    • Removed "between" and "roughly"
  • "the primary threats to its survival are habitat destruction through agricultural expansion, deforestation due to logging and narcotic cultivation, or through forest fires." There needs to be an 'and' somewhere in that list.
    • Reworded
  • "Climate change is likely to result in future prolonged droughts, which could result in a significant decrease in the tufted jay's population." Is it possible to avoid having "result" twice in a single sentence?
    • Reworded
  • Lammertink et al needs an OCLC. (906999994)
    • Added
  • Like wise Miller et al. (4638340178)
    • Added

Nice work. I enjoyed reading that. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I enjoyed writing it! grungaloo (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff. A couple of minor come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed! grungaloo (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A cracking article, especially impressive for a first-time FAC nomination. Have you done this before? Either on or off Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that means a lot! I did some writing in university but nothing since. I appreciate the feedback. grungaloo (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and prose review by AK

[edit]
  • Doesn't look like there'll be much for me to say here, but I'll leave this placeholder here nonetheless. AryKun (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This initial description of the nest seems like it has some interesting details (specifically the author's observations of other species driving out the jays).
    • Added to the Socialization and territoriality section
  • Personal preference, but "genus Cyanocorax" reads better to me than "Cyanocorax genus".
    • Changed
  • Hardy does not propose that it's descended from a vagrant flock. He says "C. dickeyi, a sedentary species not given even to accidental occurrence outside of its small known range seems to represent a relict rather than a population derived from a single flock of birds lost or blown by storm far from a native home", so he thinks that the species is a relict of a more wide-ranging ancestor elsewhere displaced by other Cyanocorax. He only mentions the vagrant flock theory and says it cannot be easily dismissed.
    • I've changed it to say that he "discussed the theory" - I believe you're right, this seems like it was a theory that was already out there, but his is the earliest paper I could find that talk about it.
  • Amadon's argument that the two species might be the result of convergent evolution seems worth mentioning.
    • Added
  • "This study...distributed common ancestor" But wouldn't all the other species that the tufjay is more closely related to also be descended from said common ancestor?
    • I would think so. Sorry, but I'm not sure what change you're looking to make?
  • "simplified from the 2010 mitochondrial DNA study" You don't need to mention that it's a mtDNA study again.
    • Done
  • BritEng would be Vocalisations.
    • It's Canadian English, Vocalization is correct (as is Socialization)
  • Shouldn't the ovivory link be at "eating eggs" instead of "stolen"?
    • Fixed
  • "10,000–20,000 mature individuals" Why round it off from the IUCN estimate?
    • Fixed - that came up at GA, I prefer the exact number.
      • I have to disagree here; the IUCN number of "19999 individuals" is not an estimate. They state placed in the band for 10,000-19,999 mature individuals, which means that they have some pre-defined categories, and 20000 would already be the next category. As you formulate it ("with an estimated 10,000–19,999 mature individuals"), without any mention of these categories, it is just wrong (false precision). It has to be 20000 instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, I've changed it back to 10,000-20,000. grungaloo (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the narcotic cultivation" to "the cultivation of narcotics"?
    • Fixed
  • What about habitat fragmentation due to roads and the loss of springs mentioned in BirdLife?
    • Added
  • BOW mentions a ejido in Sinaloa that has a community conservation plan for the species.
    • Added
  • Scientific names should be italicized in ref titles.
    • Fixed
  • The publisher for the Avibase ref should just be Avibase, not the whole website url.
    • Fixed
  • Partners in Flight ref has a typo (Vision)
    • Fixed
  • That's all I got. AryKun (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and pass source review from me. AryKun (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

File:Cyanocorax dickeyi map.svg should probably give the base map. File:Sierra.madre.occidental.volcanics.JPG does not seem as dense to me as the ALT claims. All else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "give the base map", could you elaborate please? I've replaced the Sierra Madre picture with one of a pine-oak forest in Durango. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; The underlying map, the grey bits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not 100% on what exactly you mean, but I've updated the caption to hopefully be clearer what the map represents. Is your suggestion to specify that this is a map of Mexico? grungaloo (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cyanocorax dickeyi map.svg looks like someone had a file showing a map of Mexico and painted the species distribution on top of it. I'd like to know which "file showing a map of Mexico" it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is based off of this File:Mexico template.svg but I've pinged the author of the range map to confirm. grungaloo (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, that's the base map that was used. grungaloo (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

As Grungaloo is a first-time nominator this will require a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. I'll list it a the top of WT:FAC but if any extant reviewers would like to have a go, pls feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 5 Doesn't have the distance to Costa Rica.
    • Dropped the distance to Costa Rica
  • 7 That seems to argue that this theory is not widely held.
    • First sentence under "Past Theories", "The first theory to explain the painted jay's presence in western Mexico was proposed by Moore (1935). He, and others who followed him (Amadon 1944, Crossin 1967, Hardy 1969, Haffer 1975), assumed that the painted jay was a relict species because of its tiny range." He then only mentions one alternate theory (the storm theory), and then his. Overall that's 5 of 7 who support the relict theory.
  • 8 OK
  • 12 Can I have a copy of this article?
  • 16 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 17 Can I have a copy of this page?
    • Ref 17
      • Hmm, does it specify "second year moult" anywhere? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The Formative Plumage ('immature' in Detailed Description) is retained until the prebasic molt in the second calendar year (Crossin 1967)." Second line under "Molts". I've reworded slightly to be "molt in their second year" since I think calling it a "second year molt" isn't technically correct, or at least implies there were previous molts.
  • 18 OK; thesis seems to be adequately cited.
  • 20 Can I have a copy of this page?
    • Ref 20
      • The social parts might require some rewrite; as they stand their formulation are uncomfortably similar to the source. Also, 13-18 months? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tried a rewrite, let me know your thoughts. The 13-18 months was missing a ref - I've added it, ref 36 covers that claim.
  • 23 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 24 Where's "whisper"?
    • Last sentence of page 35, "These 'whisper' duets were usually accompanied by 'billing'"
  • 26 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 30 Can't find blackberries and nuts.
  • 31 OK
  • 33 I presume the cache thing is in the other source?
    • Yes - ref 20.
  • 36 OK
  • 39 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 41 OKish interpretation.
  • 42 OK
  • 43 OK
  • 45 Can I have a copy of this page?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spot check! grungaloo (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, should all be addressed. grungaloo (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2024 (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/Tufted_jay/archive1&oldid=1217969423"