Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water pipit/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2017 [1].

Water pipit

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up to Eurasian rock pipit, this is another little brown job, but no castrating nematodes involved this time! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Looking at Commons, it seems there are maybe some better photos (even a video) that could be used? Some of the photos currently in the article are quite low res and taken from afar. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funkmonk, where are you looking? At the commons page for this species, the non-used images are even poorer, misidentified or of unclear status?
The category[2], the pages are usually not worth looking at... FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, thanks, I'll have a look through in the morning, about to log off now. Pity there isn't another blakistoni, but unsurprising Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk. OK, I've been through the gallery (note that the Adana image is actually a meadow pipit, complete with pink legs), and changed to or added larger images where I can, although there's no substitute for the blakistoni. Feel free to further change the images if you wish, since that's more efficient than me trying to second guess. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, but the new taxobox image unfortunately has a transparent watermark plastered over the bird. Perhaps one in the series you took the "Characteristic pale underparts" image from (or that photo itself) could be used instead? FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved image as suggested, the others in the series are too similar, I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect the taxonomy section to begin with info about this bird itself (naming, subecpesies), rather than its relationships?
  • You are inconsistent in whether you abbreviate subspecies trinomials.
  • Shouldn't the voice section be a subsection of description, as in other articles?
  • "A new species of feather mite was discovered on the water pipit" Why not give its name, as you do with the other parasites?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why we need to have "nominate" every time that subspecies is mentioned. Is it necessary outside the taxonomy section?
  • The different subspecies have differing appearances, calls and range, so I've either got to put "nominate" or A. s. spinoletta for the comparisons. I follow normal practice in going for the shorter option. I can't see where I have put "nominate" other than where the other ssp differ. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Birds close to snow fields took insects specialised for" Why past tense when the former sentence is present?
FunkMonk, many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

These brown pipits look practically identical to me, even when I look at a large photographs. I've made some small, hopefully uncontroversial, edits.

  • Edits look good, thanks for that. Yes, they are definitely tricky to identify, especially in the field. I moved one of the commons' images supposedly of this species to the correct meadow pipit page there, so you have to check carefully! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "The head is blueish grey ..." The head doesn't look at all blue to me and your two sources Alström & Mild and HBW do not mention blue (nor does BPW). Alström & Mild have good photos. (perhaps grey rather than grey-brown?)

Behaviour

  • "The water pipit is a much less approachable bird ..." The cited source, Bijlsma (1977), doesn't appear to support this sentence (as far as I determine using google translate).

Breeding

  • It is strange that EURING doesn't list a maximum recorded age - given that there are hundreds of ring recoveries.
  • I was surprised too. I can only speculate that most ringings were of migrating or wintering adults, that's likely given the relatively difficult nesting habitat, and were therefore unsuitable for maximum/average age calcs?? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)-[reply]

Aa77zz (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy and systematics

  • "...until they were separated by the British Ornithologists' Union in 1998." The cited source, the HBW Family article, doesn't mention the BOU.

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz, many thanks for edits and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • "... separated from A.s. coutellii. That form is ..." When reading this I have to stop and think as to which of the two mentioned species "That" is referring to. ("This" form?)

Description

  • "... and the songs are also diagnostic.[12]" where the source is Leonovich et al 1997. I cannot find this article online. It is in Russian and was already in the article before the recent expansion. For this information I think it would be preferable to use a reliable English language source.

Voice

  • The comparison of the water pipit with the rock pipit reads as if the vocalization is very different which I don't believe is the case. Alström & Mild in their 1996 article (p. 166) wrote: "The songs are basically similar, but the song of Water Pipit includes a diagnostic sequence with harsh drawn-out notes, ziir,ziir,ziir, ziir. This sequence is usually included when the song is given in flight but less often when sung from the ground." When comparing calls they write: "The calls are so similar that they cannot with certainty be distinguished from each other." The same authors also compare the two species in their 2003 book on pipits and wagtails (page 165, page 170). This looks like a useful source. The detailed discussion is on page 169 which is not available on Google preview). They cite a 1990 article by Thorsten Elfström here.
  • Two issues, I think. The songs are different, and although it's possible to argue about the extent of that difference, Simms is a vocalisation specialist, and I'm happy with his description. The calls are another matter, and I've added a sentence to make it clear that any differences are subtle and non-diagnostic. I don't accept that they are indistinguishable, as your first source says, no other source says that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

  • "The male has a display flight in which he climbs to 10–30 metres (33–98 ft), flies in an arc and glides back down." Perhaps mention that the male sings while making this manoeuvre - ("song-flight"?).

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all looks good - excellent work. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz, Many thanks again for your input, I'll try not to do another pipit next time! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]
Support this one has come together well...nothing to quibble about that I can see....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, many thanks for support. I think the previous two reviewers put this through it's paces, but I'm always happy when I don't need to act! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley

[edit]

It seems pretty good, although I noticed 1 or 2 punctuation errors (for example, no period at end of "Voice" section). I also noticed that you seemed to repeat "chicks" a lot in the second paragraph of "Breeding". Also, in "Status", what are the units in the second paragraph? For me at least, the picture in the description section is a bit low quality, and doesn't really show the head marks at a glance. Finally, any information about the variation in moults for the subspecies? Other wise, I think that it is ready to go. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBugz thanks for review. Added missing full stop and removed two chicks. Units in Status are at start of section. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Welcome! Nice job on the article! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RileyBugz, thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

Although I can see discussion of images and sources above, it doesn't appear that image licensing or source formatting/reliability have been formally checked -- you can add requests at WT:FAC as necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, thanks, will do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, thanks for that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Earwig's tool is being flakey so no plagiarism checks.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, thanks for source review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I think we are just about ready now, but I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at the "Behaviour" section. We have rather a lot of sentences beginning with "the", including six in a row at one point. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, thanks for looking. I'm not sure I accept the validity of your criticism, which I have never had raised before in over 60 FAs (doesn't necessarily mean I'm right, of course). If you are writing descriptive text, it's difficult to avoid "the" unless you chop and change between singular and plural, something for which I often criticise other editors. Even writing passively, which I try to avoid, doesn't help The nest is constructed by... has the same "problem" as "The female constructs...". In the past, I've sometimes used phrases like This pipit, but was regularly criticised for doing so. Anyway, to show willing I've lost three definite articles. Please note that I'll be away for nearly a week from tomorrow, so if this response doesn't meet your requirements, it likely I won't respond until I return, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It wasn't a huge issue, just something to bear in mind. In any case, I'll promote this now. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2017 (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/Water_pipit/archive1&oldid=758852194"