Talk:White-winged Fairy-wren
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
White-winged Fairy-wren is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | |||||||||||||||||
 |
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 10, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
White-winged Fairy-wren is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
|
WikiProject Birds To-do:
|
|
 |
White-winged Fairy-wren is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| FA |
This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] GA review
A very nice article, a pleasure to read. I have a few suggestions and only one major concern:
- How about a caption for the infobox picture? (done)
- Can we get a range/distribution map like in Red-winged Fairy-wren?
- Use en dashes (–) for number ranges rather than hyphens (-). (done)
- Please consider providing convenience links for the references whenever possible. (do you mean authorlink etc. I will try)
- Citation needed: "...studies have shown that the fairy-wrens are not in fact closely related to the true wrens". If this is a well-known fact, you can include a citation from a general source (which doesn't mention the studies) and remove "studies have shown". (done)
- "...considered of least concern by the IUCN due to its widespread availability": I'm not sure 'availability' is the right word here. (good spot. changed to occurrence)
- I believe you link the first mention of a measurement, per WP:MOSNUM.
- You should put a non-breaking space (&
nbsp;) between numbers and units, such as 2 km. (I think I got 'em all) - "They were last connected to each other at the beginning of the present interglacial 8,000 to 10,000 years ago" should explain what "connected to each other" and "present interglacial" means. It might be good to give some explanation at the beginning of that paragraph about why we're talking about distances (i.e. how they relate to evolution) to prepare the reader. (how's that?)
- I'm still not sure whether the lay reader's going to understand why they're reading about distances in the section about evolution. How about a topic sentence that explains it? Or is that too obvious? delldot talk 20:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- (tricky for me as I am very familiar with the topic. I thought the fact that they are islands now but would have been connected if sea levels were lower was evident. I'll have a think on it and see what I can come up with)
- I'm still not sure whether the lay reader's going to understand why they're reading about distances in the section about evolution. How about a topic sentence that explains it? Or is that too obvious? delldot talk 20:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the words in the "Description" section could use explanations. For example, scapulars, secondary wing coverts. Just a parenthetical line of explanation would work.
- Under "Vocalizations", what is a chip? Is there a reason why some of the calls in this list are singular and some are plural? Also, consider converting that bulleted list to prose. (converted to prose and singular where possible, chip is onomatopoiec. Added monograph ref here too)
- "or treeless shrublands dominated by Atriplex, Marieana, Triodia, or Zygochloa": What are these things? Plants? Maybe give the reader a parenthetical explanation of each, or all if they're the same type of thing (e.g. bushes such as Atriplex, Marieana, Triodia, or Zygochloa). (done. ok?)
- "Larger clans are comprised of 2-4 birds..." "Comprise" actually means "to include" or "to consist of", so it would be "Larger clans comprise 2–4 birds". But the word is so commonly mistaken I'd recommend a different word or words. "are made up of" maybe?
- "White-winged Fairy-wrens live in one of the most complex social groups of their genus" an awkward sentence, can't figure out how to reword it though.
- It's not clear what this sentence means: "Several subgroups live within one territory and make up a clan—which is flown over by one nuptially plumed blue (or black) male." What does "is flown over" refer to?
- "Nonetheless, each clan has a specified area of land that all members contribute to foraging from and defending—although these orders may vary year to year" Awkward.
- "typically 6-14 cm tall and 3-9 mm" -> "typically 6-14 cm tall and 3-9 mm wide"? (thick - added)
- "Fairy-wrens exhibit one of the highest amounts of extra-pair mating" not sure 'amounts' is the right word here.
- You may want to convert the raw URL in the external links section to a title. (done)
- Ref number 8 (ref name="RR") is a primary source. It's better to use secondary and tertiary sources like journal reviews and textbooks. I'm not convinced the original findings from that study should stay. "Incubation times for clutches laid in September and October were 15 days and 14 days in November and December clutches" sounds like it may have been lifted right out of the article, but I can't get the article. I would strongly recommend removing it though, either way: there's no reason to think that this one study's findings are going to be applicable to everything. That's why reviews are better. I'm also not sure about everything in that paragraph that's in the past tense. At best, it's reporting the findings of a single study; at worst, it's a copyvio. This sentence also reads like it came straight from a journal article: "While petal-carrying outside of clan territories is indicative of extra-pair copulations, further genetic analysis is necessary." Also, some of the other refs, e.g. Rathburn, are also primary sources. Luckily, in most cases the article is just reporting their findings, not drawing conclusions. You're on much shakier turf with statements like "recent genetic data has supported this" from a primary source; can you find a review for this? It's too bad that so much of the article relies on primary sources. Can you find review articles or books to replace these citations? (I'll look back over this particular source/article tomorrow and the rest of my primary sources, unfortunately, I was not able to get a hold of any secondary sources on this species, if anyone has access to Russell and Rowley (1995) or Schodde (1982) they should (or so I hear) provide adequate secondary sources. edit: Found an excellent secondary source, will replace citations asap Cadriethiel (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
-
- (I think I can pick up the maluridae Russell and Rowley book tomorrow at teh library) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Most of these are minor things and/or just suggestions; if you have an explanation for why you don't want to take me up on them, that's fine. The citation issue is a problem though: can you dig up a few more review articles or books to replace or supplement the primary sources? Some paragraphs, e.g. under "Behavior" "Breeding" and "Courtship" have only the primary source for a reference.
I'm putting this on hold for a week to get the additional citations. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need any help, advice, or clarification. Overall very nice work, and it'll pass with flying colors (erk! No pun intended) once the additional refs have been added. delldot talk 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New review: partial
I didn't make it through the whole article because I saw a few things with the referencing that still haven't been fixed from the previous review. I'll give it a full review once these have been addressed.
Just to note, of my points from the previous review, 2, 10, 13, and 18 haven't been addressed, but none of them is important and this can easily pass without addressing them. A few minor points, plus the referencing thing:
- "However, like other fairy-wrens, the Superb Fairy-wren is unrelated to the true wren (family Troglodytidae)." Superb? This is the first mention of the word, I think it needs explanation. Superb --> White-winged (botched cut-and-pasted) oops
- Under "Subspecies", is there a reason why it's "blue-and-white", not "blue and white"? The first two subspecies have a proper name of "Black-and-white Fairy-wren" (as opposed to the most widespread one which is blue and white. I have always assumed there were hyphens but I'll doublecheck on the official name.
- Oh, sorry, I should have been clearer: I only meant when you're using it as an adjective, e.g. "the birds are blue and white", also with black. I'm sure when it's in the name that's fine. delldot on a public computer talk 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- "family groups consisting of only one male and one female, with an occasional helper" should probably explain what a helper is. (done)
- "recent genetic data has supported this" is still using a primary source. While it's not as big of a deal when you're just stating facts from the study, this is quoting a conclusion that they drew, much shakier. A secondary source would be best, or you could make it clear that you're just talking about one study, by saying something like "a 1998 study found that [blah] and concluded that [bluh]." (done - changed to 'a 2002 study of mitochondrial DNA has supported this')
- OK, but I would still prefer it in the form of "...found that [a] and concluded that [b]" so it's clear that the article's reporting what they said, rather than making assertions of its own. delldot on a public computer talk 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- "A clutch of 3–4 eggs is generally laid beginning in September and continue through to January; those laid in September and October are incubated for 15 days, a day less for those from November and December" Are you sure this is true? These aren't general results, they're results from a single study. How do you know you can generalize? (Also, there's some subject-verb agreement stuff going on in this sentence). (I have been comparing the monograph which is written by Rowley and Russell as well but incorporates all material known and postdates study. Some of the numbers change so I have removed 'day less' bit. Nestling 10-11 day bit is in both monographs so there is wide agreement on it)
- The rest of that paragraph is still in past tense. If you're not going to cut the results from that single study, which I think you should, you should say something like "a 1998 study showed that..." so the fact that it's just one study is clear. Did you check the reference to make sure the wording is original? (see above. Removed tricky bit on incubation interval)
Sorry to leave this on hold, you two have been great about addressing stuff quickly! 1, 2, and 3 are minor suggestions. Numbers 4, 5, and 6 really must get fixed before I can pass. Gimme a poke on my talk page when they are and I'll finish re-reviewing. delldot on a public computer talk 03:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - all good feedback and much appreciated. Have away :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wow, fast! Good work. I'll begin reviewing now. Apologies for the delay, I'm at work, and they're actually making me work tonight (the cheek!). But it's my first priority till it's done :) delldot on a public computer talk 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA
Yes, this is definitely in great shape now! Here's my breakdown:
1. Well written?: Yes, very well done. Not overly technical, which is quite an accomplishment.
2. Factually accurate?: Reference problems have been thoroughly dealt with. Excellent work with the secondary/tertiary sources, really a great deal of progress was made in a short time.
3. Broad in coverage?: Appears to me to cover everything without unnecessary detail.
4. Neutral point of view?: Fine
5. Article stability?: No problems
6. Images?: Check
Congratulations! Well deserved, I certainly made you work for this one, but I suppose I'll finally let you have it: 
;) delldot on a public computer talk 07:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nice work Cas! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] More suggestions
Now I'm just being ridiculously nitpicky, since something gives me the impression that this is going to FAC soon ;)
- "a troop of White-winged Fairy-wrens are" is troop singular? Is this a subject verb agreement problem? (yes. Well picked up)
- Did my comma before "with a shorter tail" change the meaning? Which one has the shorter tail?
- "Males typically weigh between 7.2 g..." I assume this is something in the intro or discussion of this paper, not the results from this study, correct? If the latter, there would be a problem generalizing, and you'd have to change this to "a 1998 study found that..." or find a review. (changed reference to the monograph)
- It would be great to get an image of a juvenile for the description section, especially for FAC.
- I'm not sure "medium-blue" needs a hyphen. (doesn't add anything so removed)
- "whose colour vision extends into this spectrum" does ultra violet count as a spectrum, or is it, like, part of a spectrum or something? (well spotted. converted to 'this part of the spectrum.')
- "Although seemingly weak in sound, it carries a long way above the stunted shrubland." Which does, the chip or the reel? (reel)
- "They commonly cohabit with other species" is a switch from singular to plural. (missed converting this to singular before)
- If you want more images, you could use one from floodplain or another area (under habitat) to show where they hang out.
- Maybe there should be a fairy-wren navbox, or a navbox for all the members of this family or something.
- "...amounts of extra-pair mating", don't know if 'amounts' is the right word. 'Frequencies'? Or reword altogether. (amounts --> incidences. dang, meant to do that before)
- "Blue-plumaged males have been seen outside of their territory and in some cases, carrying pink or purple petals, which among other species, advertise the male to neighboring females." Unclear, especially with the parenthetical "which among other species".
I just couldn't give this article the green circle it so clearly deserves without also giving you some more trouble. :P Congratulations, great work! delldot on a public computer talk 07:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Some More Copyediting Notes
I just gave the article another copyedit. Overall, it looks great. However, I do have a few questions, outlined below:
-In Taxonomy, who are Mack and Schodde and why are they authorities?
-Also in Taxonomy, the article states that Mack gave it the name leuconotus and the following authors, well, followed. However, the specific name is leucopterus. Is this just a typo, or is another author missing? (OK, the mainland and most widely distributed form is the blue leuconotus, but the first one collected was leucopterus on a tiny little island, and is hence nominate race. I have tried to clarify it)
-In the first bit of the subspecies subsection, should the Black-and-White Fairy-wren be in italics?
(yeah, was for emphasis but looks odd next to scientific names, so I dropped it) -The article could use some more images. I'm assuming that there are no more of the bird, but perhaps a pictures of its habitat could be included? Also, has an attempt been made to get a range map? (I am working on it. Someone is making a map)
-Additionally, the citation format look odd to me and may need to be changed to standard for a FAC; please tell me if it is acceptable though, as it looks simpler than normal.
Again, a pretty good article with just a few potential minor problems. Aso, you may wish to take a glance at the copyedit changes I made to ensure I did not accidentally change the meaning, though I do think I avoided anything like that with this article. Thanks.Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Range map incorrect
I'm not sure who can edit this but WWFW can be found near Inglewood, S. Queensland which is extends the range map far more east (Inglewood is 266 km west of Brisbane) Aviceda talk 07:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... I had made the range map based off a map that Casliber e-mailed to me. The map did not have the range of White-winged Fairy-wren getting quite that close to Brisbane. The very edge of its range is about 600 km west of Brisbane in the map Cas provided. I can easily adjust the map, but would need to know where to adjust it. --JayHenry (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Predators and threats
I see that this has been discussed at FAC, but this section seems to split the Behaviour section. Should it be a sub-heading? Graham. GrahamColmTalk 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
