Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Cactus wren/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cactus wren

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Howdy hello! I recently took this article to GA, and am looking to get it to FA. I've stared at the darn thing so long I'm starting to glaze over what could be fixed. It needs some fresh eyes, which is where you good folks come in! Your comments on the matter are most appreciated.

Many thanks, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a phylogenetic tree you can add? Especially of the subspecies would be nice. Not sure what exists, but likely there is one comparing it to other species. Also, a map showing where the suspecies are found would be nice too, if it exists. --Nessie (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some phylogenetic trees exist out there, but none that are free use. In terms of a map, that is something I would like to make, and believe I have enough data to create, just gotta dust off my GIMP skills :) Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any advice about how to go about that, I'd appreciate it @NessieVL:. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A cladogram can't really be copyrighted, you can requst a code version at WP:TREEREQ. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a request at TreeReq, thanks for that tip -- had no idea that existed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll give this a full review soon, which when done should make me ready to support it at FAC. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxobox image is low res and seems to show a bird with closed eyes. Are there no better ones available? In adittion to the images on Commons, there are also these free ones on Flickr that could be looked through:[1][2]
More hi-res image found and added.
Maybe this image[3] you have under description would be even better? The new one ism a bit obscured. Or actually, this seems to be the most clear image we have of the bird:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've opted for the former, as it is higher res. I'll take another look on flickr to see if I can find anything better. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is preferred that the subjects of photos face towards the text, so could the image under description be right aligned?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what the image under Relationship to humans has to do with that subject? Perhaps show one where it is in human influenced environment instead, or move the image to for example distribution?
 Done
  • Perhaps this video of a feeding bird could be useful:[5] If so, you can choose a nicer thumbnail with the parameters also used in the video in thylacine under description.
Very useful, and thanks for that hot tip! I will ask, do you have any suggestions on where in-text the video ought go? Right now I've put it under human interactions, as the video shows a bird in downtown Phoenix. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The synonym list should include dates and authorities.
 Done
  • This free image shows possible eggs of this species, could maybe be verified by experts:[6]
I've seen that image previously, and concluded that the eggs were likely from a curve-billed thrasher instead. I've not seen any source mention CW eggs being blue, only white or pinkish, and usually speckled. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the external links seem redundant considering what's already in the article.
I've removed two of the links, but left the video links pending adding a video to the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓
I've ended up removing all of them, having added a video. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that it evolved in central Mexico, and that the wren then quickly spread to its modern range" Any time frames?
Went and found the original paper. It did not provide a timeframe, saying merely "rapidly", but did provide me with the timeframe of when it evolved in the first place, which I have added. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably good to link wren, and any other terms now only linked in the intro, at first occurrence in the article body too.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which has contributed to much ensuing taxonomic confusion" Which should be discussed in the taxonomy section for comprehensiveness.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the meaning of the scientific name?
 Done
  • "The first cactus wren was described in 1835" Better to say the species was described in this year, and then later specify the holotype was procured from a sailor.
@FunkMonk: Not quite sure what you mean here, as thats how its currently written? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the wording, might be more precise as for example "The species was described in 1835 by the French ornithologist Frédéric de Lafresnaye; he never visited America, and procured the holotype specimen from" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. brunneicapillus is the oldest classification of cactus wren, and thus includes members of C. b. couesi." Not sure what this is supposed to mean. That C. b. couesi is a synonym? But later below you treat it as if valid.
Not sure what it was supposed to mean either, as I went back to the original source and couldn't make out what they meant either. I have simply removed it, based on data from another source. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its flanks are more buff colored and the spots on its abdomen are more delineated than the nominate race." But C. b. brunneicapillus is the nominate, so what does "its" refer to here?
Oops, cleaned that up. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. brunneicapillus is the oldest classification of cactus wren" It would be less confusing if you specified it is the nominate and first named subspecies.
 Done
  • Do the sources say race or subspecies? The former seems more scientific and specific (though yes, it can mean the same, but it is more ambiguous).
I've chosen to switch to "subspecies" to clarify things, as the sources prefer to use subspecies. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to state the dates for the studies discussed at the beginning of subspecies. First you cite a DNA study from 2005 stating there are only two lineages, but later you cite a 1972 book for there being many subspecies, which would appear to be outdated info, but you state it as current fact.
I had the assertation of only 2 lineages in there from a tertiary source (HBW), but in going back and reading the original paper, I couldn't find that conclusion. They only mention 2 subspecies in the paper, but thats because they only chose to study 2 subspecies since they were doing a genus wide study and had a lot of birds to sample. I have thus removed the asseration, and cleaned up said paragraph. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Molecular DNA studies have shown that C. b. seri may not be a distinctive race" But didn't you say earlier this is true for most of them?
Again, tried to substantiate this claim, but couldn't find a secondary source that said this, and have simply removed the claim. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tinge on crown" and "cinnamon than nominate". Why no "the" in these cases?
Cleaned up. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be good to give etymologies for subspecies names.
Alas, none of the sources I have cover that. Is there another way I can do that? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are some books out there that give etymologies for bird names, here's an online one, perhaps something's there:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done That was a very helpful lil book. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Howdy hello! I am still around, and quite thankful for your review! I'm a bit busy right irl now, so I might get to implementing this until later in the season, but most appreciate your comments. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You start the description section with "The cactus wren is the largest wren in the United States." SO it would seem more logical that this was followed on the size measurements rather than as now, with beak description.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coloration of the nominate subspecies is brown with white speckles, and has distinctive white eyebrows" The coloration has white eyebrows?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lower mandible is grayish and pale." If this is about the lower bill, then it would be better to group this info with the other beak description earlier?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The supercilium (stripe above the eye) is white." It seems odd that this sentence is grouped with description of feather types, when you do describe patterns of the head earlier (it would make more msense next to that text)?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I think the order of description sentences could be looked through for better flow and structure, so you for example follow the bird form head to tail in that order, whereas now it seems to jump around at random. Rump is described before chest, and so on.
  • "The cactus wren is distinctive, and may not be easily mistaken for other species" and "Although it looks similar to other wrens in its genus" Seems contradictory, could perhaps be reworded?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominate is linked twice.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its range includes the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts, and generally requires spiny cactus to nest in." As written, it would seem its range requires spiny cactus...
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cactus wren's range is bi-national, existing in only the United States and Mexico." Likewise, reads as it range is what is existing, rather than the bird.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Displays are incredibly short" Hyperbolic.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a copy edit could be good to improve some of the wording, as can be requested at WP:LOCE/R. But since you're a native English speaker (unlike me) it might not be necessary, but I always do this before FAC to get it out of the way, and to shake the text up a bit, in case I've paraphrased sources too closely. The queue can just be a bit long.
  • "At nest in Desert Botanical Garden" Perhaps state it is in a cactus?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have an image of a bird identified to subspecies? Could maybe be good to show in the subspecies section, the first part of the article is pretty empty of images...
  • "The bill refers to the bird as both the "Cactus Wren" and "Coues' Cactus Wren". The State Legislature specifically designated subspecies C. b. couesi as the state bird." I would reverse the order of these two sentences, especially since only the second sentence explains why the name "Coues' Cactus Wren" is used by naming the subspecies.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inflicted by Gila woodpeckers" Link this, and any pother species names mentioned.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the average caloric needs of a developing chick required about 15 medium sized grasshoppers per day" The needs required? Or the caloric need/requirement is 15 grasshoppers?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in young seems to starvation" Seems to be?*" destroyed by the either" By the other?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once breeding season wanes" The breeding season?
 Done changed to mating season and defined earlier onCaptain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similar species which nest in coastal sage scrub (the preferred nesting habitat of coastal cactus wrens) have faced high levels of extinction" Which similar species?
 Done Found the original paper. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has lessened red tinge the on crown compared" On the?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the nominate species has a brown crown" Isn't this and most of the following description true for tall the subspecies?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and generally fly only to reach calling perches" Only seems to be stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.
 DoneCaptain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This wren's common name comes from its frequent use of saguaro and cholla cacti as nesting sites" Also only stated in intro.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last minor point, the photos from description to distribution are a bit samey in regard to the bird, any other different looking ones that show a new angle or similar that could be added instead?
Found some more, but might still look for others. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

[edit]
  • A 2007 genetic study did not support conspecificity to either species. - might be better to write more plainly ("A 2007 genetic study indicated all three were distinct species.") and then add a sentence as to why.
 Done
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cactus_wren/archive1&oldid=922399742"