Wikipedia:Peer review/Bird/archive1

Bird

A Vital article, and one that has been the subject of a considerable amount of work as well as a collaboration by the bird Wikiproject. It's long, mostly because of the references, but also because it is covering a truly massive subject. I'm mostly tinkering with it at the moment (the taxonomy section needs some more work) and would appreciate some more eyes for typos, mistakes, bits that make sense to me but no one else and other suchlike. Hopefully we can get this featured soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing I noticed after reading the first few sections and skimming the rest would be there's a "citation needed" tag at the end of the Use of the term Bird section. Wouldn't that be a problem in a FA candidacy? Also, although it's of no consequence, all this British English tickles me to the bone. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a problem, and it will be dealt with. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome - I'm off to read the rest of the article more thoroughly. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 23:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason behind capitalizing all letters in 'SUBCLASS NEORNITHES' in the Bird Order section? It looks a bit odd at the place. DSachan 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I changed it.

The article is good and flows well but before nominating it to FAC, the two 'citations needed' tags will have to be taken care of. DSachan 07:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birds are social and communicate using visual signals and through calls and bird song, and participate in social behaviours including cooperative hunting and breeding, flocking. - perhaps make it less redundant by replacing bird song with songs, unless that's too ambiguous for the reader. Also, am I misunderstanding the end of the sentence or should there be a word before "flocking"? I'm so glad this is finally at PR. The vital bio articles are what need the most effort and this isn't too far from becoming the first animal class FA. Enok^talk 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flocking bit was a slight mistake, it should read cooperative hunting and cooperative breeding and flocking. I clarified and fixed. I also changed song. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article, and it seems to be in excellent condition. I only have a few comments:

The article uses a lot of jargon, which may be an issue for some. (C.f. Wikipedia:Explain jargon.)
The "Evolution and taxonomy" section has a pair of "[citation needed]" tags.
Can molecular dating and radiation be wikilinked?
In the "Bird orders" section, it might be better to use a ~~semi-colon~~ colon (sorry) following the family names in order to distinguish the common names. For example: "Falconiformes: falcons, eagles, hawks and allies".
"[17]," — citations should follow punctuation.
Finally, could the article explain why birds have beaks rather than teeth? Perhaps it could mention cooling techniques, such as gaping? Also it could briefly discuss bathing, and why some birds take dirt baths.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'll get working on that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BirgitteSB

Lead: Humans make use of birds in a number of ways: yuck

Fixed, better? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution and taxonomy: I would really like to see some information on how Aves came to be classified under the dinosaur linage. Was there one important discovery or a series of small discoveries?
- Aves is commonly defined as all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of modern birds (a specific modern bird species like Passer domesticus for the purposes of phylogenetic taxonomy), and Archaeopteryx lithographica. These kinds of parenthetical statements are hard to follow.
Use of the term "bird":This (mostly) self reference section needs to go. The lead has already defined what is meant by bird in this article.
Dinosaurs and the origin of birds,Radiation of modern birds, and Bird orders:I think this info needs to be simply merged under the heading "Evolution and taxonomy". The actual list of Bird orders should be cut but dissucusion of the difference between taxononmies is good. I think this because the distinction between these different topics are diffucult to see. Where does dissucion of origin end and radiation begin? How are orders not tied in with the radiation? Also "bird" should neve be in a subtitle.
Distribution: It would be nice to see some disscusion of why the bird "plan" is so successful that it has been distruted so widely.
Bird anatomy: Rename "Anatomy". The comparision "unlike mammals" isn't very informative. If what is being dicussed is unlike other forms of life; you should say "unquie among birds". If it is not you should mention what other groups shares this trait "similar to reptiles".

done.

- In addition, many species of birds regurgitate pellets. This should be moved to the digestive paragraph.

I disagree, personally.

- A bird’s eyes are developed for taking off, spotting landmarks, hunting and feeding I would guess the eyes vary highly amoung birds, at least compared to feature like the crop and air sac. This statement is way too general and it hard to claim to know what anything "was developed for" at all.

Removed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feathers and plumage: The second half this section could be rewritten more clearly. There is no mention sex-specific plumage.
Flight: This section is weak. There is so much more to say about this. Varitety in types of flight (hummingbird vs. albatros). Competeing effciencies (diving in the water vs. air flight). Variety in the amount of time generally spent airborne.
Relationship with humans: I think this section needs to be refocused a bit more on the bird. Bird as vectors for disease effects more than just humans.

A separate section is being worked on to cover birds effecting other animals and birds tehmselves. The focus of this section should be on humans impacting birds and birds impacting humans.

Use by humans I would rather see this called "Domestication and captivity".

How's economic importance? The section covers more than just domestication and captivity.

Missing: Where is the information on birds role in the larger ecosystem? Thier role as pollinators and how they spread seeds. Most islands owe a large portion of their plant species to birds. Birds also spread disease which is mentioned, but what about the common role birds play in the lifecycles of parasites?

Plenty to think about there. TRhanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments: I just compared this to the currently featured article Bacteria. Two equivelent sub-sections missing from Bird are "Ornithology" and "Genetics".--BirgitteSB 11:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithology is mentioned, just not covered as its own subject, and the genetics is covered in part in systematics but the other stuff in the bacteria genetics stuff section that might be covered here is better covered in the eukaryotes article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments

Sorry I didn't spot this when it was originally posted. At Sabine's Sunbird's invitation here are peer review comments. Anything I've spotted which I felt was a non-controversial fix, I've made directly to the article.

Lead

"9,000 to 10,000 species" - are there any recent authorities which suggest that the world species total is anywhere as low as 9,000? The new Gill & Wright checklist has a total of over 10,000. Maybe it would be better to say "around 10,000" or "9,700 to 10,200" or whatever the ranges of recent estimates are.

Question - are there any major topics which are featured in the body of the article which aren't summarised in the lead?

I like to think it covers the important stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we work a definition of the adjective "avian" somewhere into the lead?

This is a encyclopedia entry not a dictionary. If you like we can interwiki to Wiktinoary the first time we iuse the word avian. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for the lead, more to follow for the article body later SP-KP 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution & taxonomy

I've added some citation needed tags.
Neornithes is mentioned, what are the other subclasses?
Dinosaurs & origins - last sentence of first paragraph not quite grammatical.
Second paragraph - basal is a bit of jargon so ought to be wikilinked to a relevant article.
"Both may be predated by Protoavis texensis" - I presume this doesn't mean Protavis ate Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis?

Nice catch ! Shyamal 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After each of Cretaceous, Jurassic & Mesozoic, how about (xx MYA) in brackets?
What do "uncinate processes" do?

The wikilink at uncinate process seems to explain this. Shyamal 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we give dates of existence for the dromaeosaurs & oviraptorids
Which modern bird features does Archaeopteryx lack?
"the larger members of the family are secondarily flightless" (which family?)

More later. SP-KP 17:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a contradiction in this section - at the start Neognathae is termed a superorder, later on in the radiation section, Galloanserae is a superorder ... only one of these can be right, I think? SP-KP 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation section - we have some inconsistent spellings of Neognathae, Galloanserae.

Seems to be proper pluralization - neognathes and galloanseri. Shyamal 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we work a wikilinked occurrence of the word radiation early into this section so that readers unfamiliar with the idea of a radiation can go & read about it.
Question - how should we show that there is not completely universal agreement on the orders of modern birds?
Radiation section - the end of the first paragraph appears to contradict the end of the second one.
Add S&A and S&M to the references section & link to them where they are mentioned

SP-KP 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution section

How about some more material - e.g. on continental vs island avifaunas, endemism - with some stats to illustrate. Ian Newton's Speciation & Biogeography is an excellent source. SP-KP 16:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the subject of my PhD yet I'm at a loss on how and whether to include it. I decided not to in the end because it is kind of specialised in one sense, is kind of irrelevant for birds as a whole and is a phenomenon not especially unique to birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy section

On the diagram:

"Typical birds" don't have wattles do they?

Altered the caption ! Shyamal 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are lesser coverts significant enough to indicate? And "coverts" is too vague.

Added Median covert. Only other possibility is to alter the image and remove pointers.

~~Beak or bill?~~

Per a discussion on WPBIRD we're leaving it as is. Both are correct, one more usually used for smaller bills, one for larger beaks.

~~How about wikilinking the features in the caption to their respective articles?~~

SP-KP 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TimVickers

The text is pretty good, but could be improved by removing superfluous qualifiers such as "can" and "may". For a random example "Some displays can be quite elaborate, using such varied methods as tail and wing drumming, dancing, aerial flights, and communal leks depending on the species." would be more concise as "Some displays are quite elaborate, using such varied methods as tail and wing drumming, dancing, aerial flights, and communal leks, depending on the species." another is "Chicks can be helpless or independent at birth, or be at any stage in between." would be better as "Chicks of different species vary in how quickly they gain independence."

The loose writing - "can", "may", "often", "many" etc. - makes the text read hesitantly, where it is possible to remove these words, do so. Tim Vickers 00:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right and I'll give it a go, but just so you know "Chicks can be helpless or independent at birth, or be at any stage in between." and "Chicks of different species vary in how quickly they gain independence." actually have very different meanings. One is about the state they are at hatching, the other when they become independent. BTW the example was a good one for me to see as chicks aren't born, they hatch! Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ravedave

Overall the article overly technical and quite dry until you get most of the way through. I would almost call it over cited as well, (ex: citing that a humming bird is a nectar feeder). I also feel the article is too long. Some specifics: I'd like to see the origin of "Aves" (latin, greek etc). Shouldn't Aves be italicized rather than bolded? Should "winged" and "feathered" be added to the in initial sentence? Remember all cites should go after punctuation (ex:...9,800[6] to 10,050[7] ...). This is interesting: "...the earliest known bird is the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx." and "The basal bird Archaeopteryx ... though it is not considered a direct ancestor of modern birds." If it isn't an ancestor of birds, is it a bird? The Evolution and taxonomy section is quite long. -Ravedave 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would almost call it over cited as well _personally I'd agree, but I had a editor throw a lot of citation needed tags in and at this point Sandy georgia gave it the thumbs up which is good enough for me
Shouldn't Aves be italicized rather than bolded No, Aves (capitalised) is a class, same as Mammalia. In taxonomy only the genus and species is in italics
- I'll fix that on the other class articles then.
I'd like to see the origin of "Aves" Somewhat trivial, especially considering the already prodigious length of the article.
- It's an extra 2-3 words, see Amphibian.
If it isn't an ancestor of birds, is it a bird? Yes, it just means it and the other birds shared a common ancestor.
I also feel the article is too long. I haven't added a great deal of content for month, back when it was a usual length for a topic. the fact it has so many citations is a large part of its size, the other is that it is an immense subject (a whole class of animals with 10000 odd species)
The Evolution and taxonomy section is quite long. Yup. Birds have been around for 130 million years plus. That is a lot of history to cover. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I disagree with Sandy Goergia. Based on the over citations and length I would oppose. -Ravedave 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is about the same length as evolution, which was recently featured. Slightly more references. Back before the references for this article broke 50 it was about 60 k Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine, if people knowledgeable on the topic say it's overcited, I defer to them. I don't know what is common knowledge vs. not in the field. When I think of overcited, I think of those article that show up at FAC with strings of three citations after every few clauses, and I'm more accustomed to working on medical articles, where there is very little that doesn't require citation. (By the way, I'm confused about articlehistory at the talk page; there's a peer review in articlehistory, one not in articlehistory, they appear to be the same one, and it doesn't appear to be listed at PR. Before you come to FAC, that should be sorted out in articlehistory.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor that threw in all the citation wanted tags alsdo works with birds. I am more than happy to whittle them down some. I just don't want this to be an issue at FAC. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]