Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Western Jackdaw/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 GrahamColm 18:29, 28 May 2012 [1].

Western Jackdaw

Featured article candidates/Western Jackdaw/archive1

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) [reply]

We're nominating this for featured article because it got a thorough going over by Keilana (talk · contribs) at GAN, and it's been scrutinised by folks at the birds wikiproject. I feel it's really come together nicely and am confident outstanding issues can be dealt with quickly here (especially with two of us). So have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber, Cwmhiraeth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review ... (special guest appearance from the past... blame Brian!)

~~World cat shows Valpy ref (#4) with a publisher of Adamant Media Corporation?~~
- fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~What makes http://www.globaltwitcher.com/artspec.asp?thingid=26248 a high quality reliable source? (Current ref 13)~~
- good point. globaltwitcher unneeded as the fact about four subspecies in most detailed treatises, so have removed and left commented-out note that ref after sentence after covers both sentences. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://calidris.home.xs4all.nl/jackdaw.htm a high quality reliable source? (Current ref 15) ... if it is high quality - it needs publisher, accessdate, etc. - all the bibliographical information.
- Well referenced article published by the Dutch Birding Association in their journal. I have reformatted the reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~As the previous ... what makes http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/birds/jackdaw.htm a high quality reliable source? And needs bibliographical information if it is.~~
- It is written by a well-qualified british birdwatcher and the site has been favourably reviewed. Will expand the ref. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes it marginally reliable (but iffy) but what makes it "high quality"? Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found a new, reliable source (current ref 79) for the information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Current ref 39 (Birdlife International) needs bibliographical information.~~
- Fixed now Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The range is vast, with an estimated global extent of between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 km². It has a large global population, with an estimated 10 to 29 million individuals in Europe alone." is sourced to this source but that source says there are "In Europe, the breeding population is estimated to number 5200000-15000000 breeding pairs, equating to 15600000-45000000 individuals..." which seems to be a different number than that in the article...
- Numbers changed in article Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, three other spotchecks of online sources found no issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Corvus_monedula_distribution_de.svg: pages for source?
- ~~dammit. misplaced the goddamn thumbstick where I'd had all the cramp info. Can fix tomorrow....and ask about t'other~~ pagenumbers added nowCasliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Borrowed_plumes.jpg: date of death for author? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Harrison Weir died in 1906. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a query on referencing. Why there is a "works cited" section in the references? This section contains two books. I can see there are many book already cited in the references section, so why those two books are included in a special section? Why don't integrate those two books in the references section also? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The works cited bit contains two books of which I referenced multiple separate pages. The inline references thus highlight the specific page of information and the bottom place is the location of the complete reference (rather than writing it out in full each time) We've made them link automatically before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why not reference the other books in this same way? Then there should be a consistency in referencing? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. For books where I've only used a single page or a small pagerange, I generally just leave them in the inline section where their full details are. It's only when I've used a large pagerange for lots of different items that I do this Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well-written article, meets FAC. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I don't mind if folks are ~~mean~~ thorough at FAC, we're ~~suckers for punishment~~ keen to make the article as good as possible. ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Corvus-01.jpg. Has this bird got some tail feathers missing? Is this a representative image? Snowman (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have no idea. Could it have just been a windy day? Not sure..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be moulting, I suppose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is moulting, where are its new feathers? Without a satisfactory explanation of missing tail feathers to include in the caption, I think that this image should not be shown in the article. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I've removed the image. It is not an overly informative one and we have alot of images in the article so no great loss. ~~I'll double check to see if we have any other interesting flying shots~~ Snowman I am happy if you want to check commons and add any photos or advise on which (if any) photos might add something educational to the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page

Support - Looks nice to me, a lay person when it comes to birds. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments.

On the whole it looks good. A few notes:

In general, specific species are capitalised ("Rook") and groups are lowercased ("pigeon") but when referring just to the Western Jackdaw, eg/ in "Distribution", the lowercase "jackdaw" is used. This seems a bit odd; it seems to imply both species.
- This does seem anomalous. I am discussing with Casliber how best to proceed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - I've gone through to minimise ambiguity, with deft use of passive tense, pronouns and other words to avoid using "jackdaw" and using "Western Jackdaw" too frequently...done every section bar the Cultural depictions and folklore section, where I find it a bit odd-sounding. Musing on whether the folkloric focus of the section renders it less necessary to enforce the proper name here or not. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Several of the descriptive bits may apply to both species, but I guess it's best to be safe and precise! I think I agree generally on folklore - using "Western Jackdaw" continually does make it quite formal-sounding, and that doesn't seem as appropriate here. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy - is Coeleus a genus now or not? It's a little ambiguous in the second para, though I may just be getting myself muddled here.
- Reworded to clarify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rereading it, I think the confusing part is the mention of the IOC list - as it's the last mention of the genus issue, it suggests it's the final word - perhaps move the "most works have retained" comment down to here? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have reworded it again. Is that any better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Subspecies - what's the origins of the subspecies names, if known? Monedula is clear, but the others are intriguing...

- I did some detective work and have added these. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Etymology - "is a compound of the forename (...) may be the origin" seems to slightly contradict itself. I'd suggest damping down the second part to something like "has been suggested"

- do you mean aligning them like this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Names - "college" in college-bird is cathedral; but why "cathedral-bird"?

- Removed.
  - I'm guessing it's something to do with spires, cf chimney-sweep, but no real idea!

* Breeding - "Jackdaws usually breed in colonies with monogamous pairs..." - is "monogamous" needed, given the previous paragraph?

- ~~Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

* Parasites - "In Britain, jackdaws sometimes peck open the foil caps of bottles of milk" - the tense is a bit odd here, since foil caps have mostly vanished in the past decade (IME, anyway...)

- This sentence has been rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Cultural depictions - some of these seem a bit borderline trivial, but "Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz" is the real oddball. Is this really relevant to the bird?

- Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One comprehensiveness comment - no mention of intelligence? I know corvids are generally held to be particularly intelligent birds, but I don't know if there's been any research on the jackdaw per se. Otherwise, it looks pretty good - excellent work! Andrew Gray (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Papers on intelligence are tricky - some involved showing that they were less smart than Common Ravens etc. so didn't have much to add there. Am tempted to revisit to see what we can add that might be jackdaw specific. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mostly looks good for the style issues. I'll have a look tonight for anything on intelligence; even if they're just moderately intelligent compared to ravens, it might be worth mentioning as a note under behaviour for readers unfamiliar with corvids in general. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found this bit which is interesting and it'd be good to get the article it came from. The tricky bit is how much to add and where.....but I have to sleep on it, g'night....zzzzzzz Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim COI. I am a member of the Bird Project and made some edits to this article long before this FAC. Few problems, but some nitpicks

lighter grey part collar — partial?
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~links for secondaries, primaries, wind tunnel, Caspian, silicaceous, calcareous?~~
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
which makes up about 75% of the length of the head — not correct, the length of the bill is about 75% of that of the rest of the head, but it certainly doesn't make up 75% of the length of the head.
- Clarified this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
premoult — explain or link
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
chough — when referring to the genus it should have a link somewhere
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1,000,000 and 10,000,000 km² — You have used the neater "million" (as a word) in the rest of the para, why not here?
- Altered this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mauritania is a country, shouldn't be linked
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
drive off larger birds such as ... Common Terns... — I find it difficult to imagine how Common Terns are likely to be in the same habitat as Jackdaws, let alone seen as a threat. Are you sure this is right?
- I don't have access to Cramp to check this but jackdaws are found on coastal cliffs so they could well interact with terns. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that terns don't use coastal cliffs. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point! I have removed the Common Terns from the list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skylark (Alauda arvensis),[67] Manx Shearwater (Puffinus puffinus), Razorbill (Alca torda), Common Murre (Uria aalge), Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea),[63] Rock Pigeon (Columba livia),[68] and Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaoct — Can you clarify what they are eating. I assume eggs, and possibly fledglings of the smaller species, but the image of a Jackdaw trying to swallow a heron doesn't readily come to mind.
- Clarified this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existing Madge and Burn pp. 136–137 reference also supports a few other facts that may be worth adding. Jackdaws will ride on the backs of sheep and other mammals, seeking ticks as well as actively gathering wool or hair for nests... 84% plant material except when breeding, when main food source is insects.. Will feed on flying ants
- I don't have Madge and Burn but am looking to see if I can find this or similar information elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support and final comments I added the Madge stuff, please check. No further concerns, except that if foil tops on milk bottles are obsolete, no one has told my milkman. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The foil caps are back on the bottles! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support now...Comment. Superb article. The only thing I can find issue with is that one ref and one ext link that are PDFs have the PDF parameter while the rest don't. I'm not sure if is parameter is required for PDF refs or not, but I think usage or lack thereof should at least be consistent. Resolve this and I'll eagerly support. PumpkinSky talk 01:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removed. We've been getting rid of 'em. Preemptive thx 4 the support... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...in ref 10 (haring) it's still showing up. Is this because of the DOI link? PumpkinSky talk 02:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, I was wondering why CTRL-F wasn't finding it - on a subpage - fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky talk 09:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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