Talk:Cactus wren/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice, I would love to review this. I will post all my comments about the article within the next few days. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented all lead and T&S suggestions, thanks so much for reviewing this! I really appreciate the quick review uptake, I know how long GA noms can sit around sometimes. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I got some work the last few days, but hopefully I'll finish adding my comments by tomorrow, and I will also check your tweaks. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General checks: Dablinks, duplinks, copyvio - no issues except for a "spotted wren" duplink towards the end of "Description". Consistent use of American English - check.

In the lead,
- Maybe crown would be a good term to link (not sure if it is common in bird articles).
- has been described like a car engine that will not start Maybe something like "described by researchers" would be more proper, like don't let people think "described by whom?"
- They are ground feeders – but somewhat poor fliers Correct me if I am wrong, but I would feel it is natural that if they tend to feed on stuff at ground, the poor at flight fact won't be much of a surprise; it would be more like this feeding habit is an impact of their poor ability. The "but", therefore, looks a bit out of place here. This in fact is followed by the this leads to much of ... perches calling part, so that the whole line looks like you first describe an effect (something the bird must resort to) due to a feature and then elaboration of the effects of the feature. Maybe rearranged for better, but your call.
- saguaro and cholla cactus Shouldn't it be "cacti", referring to two species of cactus?
- Their football-shaped nests The use of a wikilink to indicate the right shape is great, but I was wondering that if a reader misses that link won't they most likely confuse it with Football (ball)? A reword may help.
- I guess you should wikilink "territories", "monogamous" and "introduced species".

A few new points:

Its wings and feathers are brown The pronoun seems to be causing some confusion, as if it were describing the nominate species (being discussed right before) and not the wren in general.
They are ground feeders...reach calling perches These two lines seem to have very similar beginnings. One of them could be altered.
grasses and domestic cats have also comma after cats

In Taxonomy and systematics,
- Although the cactus wren represents the largest wren in the US, it is not in fact the largest wren: that title is shared between the giant wren and the bicolored wren. Probably sounds better as "Although the cactus wren represents the largest wren in the US, globally the title is shared between the giant wren and the bicolored wren."
- Conspecificity is not supported by genetic study with either species Is this the conclusion from only one or multiple such studies? If one, then it could be clarified better like "not supported by a genetic study by __" or "by a ___ genetic study" (insert year). If many, then it doesn't seem clear from the present wording.

The original source didn't specify, but I looked around and found the actual study, read through it, and added it as a source. It appears that only the one study was done, as I couldn't find any other genetic studies. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- More recent study Would be appropriate to mention the year, as the reader does not know when you added this line.

Few more points:

The 2007 genetic study showed this "genetic" could better be dropped to avoid repetition of the phrase "2007 genetic study".
The first cactus wren was described Scientific description would be a good wikilink for "described".

Done, and fixed duplink too. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, all the fixes are good except that the duplink pointed out hasn't been removed. Continuing with the rest of the article,

In Subspecies,

Per the MOS, one digit numbers should typically be written in words
Anderson & Anderson Could you put their full names, or say researchers from xyz institute or something? The idea is to put the identities of the people clearly for the reader's convenience.
C. b. sandiegensis as its own subspecies do you mean "as an independent subspecies"? As it is I can't get its meaning.
Covering most of the cactus wren's range I think "covers" sounds better
but couesi takes precedence stick to "C. s. ___" format consistently for subspecies. Please check for other instances
This species is not accepted you mean subspecies right?
Could you add wikilinks for the authors?

Which authors? For Anderson & Anderson, neither have wiki pages. For the folks who classified the birds originally, none but lafresnaye (already linked) have pages. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who instead believes it shouldn't "who" be "that" or "which"?
Eggs darker than other races The first line of each bullet may be an incomplete sentence, but putting an incomplete one after a few complete sentences like this case doesn't look that good in my opinion. If you agree, please check for other instances.
at least 150 miles convert template?
Although officially recognized as a subspecies By whom? Is the American Ornithologists Union being referred to here? As other groups may not be of the same opinion.
Any particular order in which the subspecies are arranged?

Re-arranged in order they were discovered. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Description,

The cactus wren is the largest wren in the United States and has a thick, heavy bill The two facts don't seem to exactly belong to a single sentence. How about combining the second one with the following line?

Done, but slight question here: I now have 4 references for this one sentence. All the refs are necessary, as no one source says all those things, but I'd like the refs to less bulky. Any way to combine the refs together or somehow make it less...bulky? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This wren is between 18 centimetres (7.1 in) and 19 centimetres (7.5 in) long I feel omitting the first "centimetres" could help with readability, probably even put abbr=on in the template. As in 18–19 cm (7.1–7.5 in). If you agree, please ensure consistency in this format throughout the article.
The crown, is chocolate-brown Why the comma?
You may ignore my earlier comment about single digit numbers to be written in words in this section, as putting them in digits improves readability here.
usually on the bird's own territory Shouldn't "on" be "in"?
The cactus wren is not easily mistaken Probably go with some softer wording for naive birdwatchers, like "may not be easily mistaken".
in the genus Campylorhynchus Could be shortened to simply "its genus"
The spotted wren looks similar, You said the cactus wren resembles other species in the genus, then you separately mention the spotted wren. Is it special, as in it resembles the cactus wren notably better? Then maybe highlight this better in the line. Or put this forth as an example "For instance, the spotted wren looks similar but is paler..."
Would be good to wikilink mandible, rump, plumage, moulting. Also link "territory" if it has not been linked anywhere except in the lead (same goes for the other links suggested for the lead).

In Vocalizations,

Its main call is a harsh It is better to start sections not using pronouns, perhaps "The wren" looks better
It has been described as sounding Take care to avoid vagueness, as I suggested in the lead
A "buzz" or "tek" are given as warning calls Shouldn't it be "a "buzz" or "tek" is given as a warning call"?
Fledglings, and only fledglings, are known to make a "dzip" call Probably sounds better as "A "dzip" call is known to be made exclusively by fledglings".
Calls are made while the beak is held just slightly above horizontal Would probably read better before you enlist the different kinds of calls

In Distribution and habitat,

Would be good to link panhandle.

In Behavior and ecology,

Mating displays begin Maybe link display
Mating happens beginning in late February Maybe you could simply say "Mating begins in late February"
Nests are the size and shape of an American football Note my comment on "football" earlier
Would be good to wikilink detritus, brood parasitism, micro-climate, Gila woodpeckers, pollinator
been recorded[5]) would be a good idea to put the ref after the bracket
wrens lay 3–4 (as many as 7 have been recorded[5]) white to pale pink eggs the bracketed part would read better if it comes after "eggs", it is a common practice. Please check for other instances (one follows right after 2-3 lines)
Isn't "fruit" and the insects in "Feeding" too common to wikilink? Also foxes and domestic cats later on?
Flocking has only been observed in areas of abundant forage, and does not last long Any idea how long (minimum)?

The book I took this info from concludes not more than a few hours, but the authors found that it was so rare they could not more accurately research it. In 40 years of research, they observed the behavior only once, although include second hand anecdotes of lay people observing flocks. Time and other details of those flocks was not noted. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"23.5 mm × 17 mm" needs convert template
to the Curve-billed thrasher Why does the name begin with caps?
highly unusual 6 inches, over a hundred feet - convert

In Status,

Across its range "Across the cactus wren's range", to ensure you are not talking just about the subspecies in the earlier section.

Citations need a lot of cleaning up. Common errors:

Don't put www.xyz.com as the publisher unless it is the only way. Name them. Like ref 10 should look like - {{cite web |title=Cactus Wren |url=https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Cactus_Wren/id |website=All About Birds |publisher=The Cornell Lab of Ornithology |accessdate=13 February 2019}} which gives: "Cactus Wren". All About Birds. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Retrieved 13 February 2019.

I'll admit that I'm rather bad at citations, its the one part of Wikipedia that always bedevils me. I've gone through and tried to clean them up as best I can, but please feel free to let me know how to improve them further, or be Bold and improve them. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add italics for species names
Ref 5 has a subscription issue

What would you suggest I do about that? I got access to the subscription via WP:BIRDS. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are all the comments I have after going through the whole article. Many are suggestions for improvements in the prose, and some like numbers in digits, wikilinks and subspecies format need attention throughout the text. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing this article. I am quite busy for the next few days, but after that I will go through and implement your comments, and then ping you here once I am finished. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek It has been nearly 10 days since any updates have showed up here. Please respond soon. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Oh goodness me, my bad, I totally Wiki-forgot! I have some spare time later today and will work on it then. Thank you for bearing with me :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 14:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Alrighty, I do believe that I have taken care of most everything. I've asked a few questions above about specific points above that I have not yet or fully taken care of. Please let me know if I missed anything! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

After going through the changes and your questions at a few places we are left with the following points to discuss:

About the too many refs problem in Description, I don't really know of any way to clump refs together unless it is okay to just put a note there to refer to xyz references (I haven't really seen that being done anywhere). Anyway, having a bunch of refs anywhere should not really be too much of a worry, so in a discussion about the GA worthiness of this article it is not really a point we need to ponder about much.
Wherever you can't gather more info, it's fine till maybe there is scope for more info to be added in the future. The article is already good in coverage, no doubts in that.
The citations need some work though. I have fixed all of them (except 5 and 6, which would be better if you fix them as I say later) and you can go through the changes, and I hope you improve upon citation editing as it is a necessary skill. I guess "cite book" would be proper for refs. 5 and 6, please use that, and it would help if you provide the ISBN and page numbers (what we see now from the link is just the web version).

I certainly hope to get better at citations too! Practice makes perfect eh? Anyway, in terms of ref 5 (hbw), I realized that it was in fact the same as old ref one, so I combined them to make just one "hbw" cite. They are both citing the same edition of handbook of birds of the world, and I just hadn't caught that they were the same earlier. That also means that the ref got cleaned up nicely. In terms of ref 6 (birds of north america online), there is no ISBN for it, as it is not a book. As is, it already has a DOI and ISSN. I was given access to the online portion by User:Sabine's Sunbird. I can provide you copies of the info if you desire. I have cleaned the ref up a bit anyway, adding publisher and note on subscription. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While editing the raw text I saw you write subspecies differently at places like ''C. b.'' ''sandiegensis'' or ''C. b. sandiegensis''. I am curious why.

Ah, that was an artifact of me using the visual editor and copy pasting some stuff. I have cleaned it up. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rest all is fine, and once we are done with these last few things I would be happy to promote this article. Great work on this one CaptainEek! Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Alrighty, I tinkered with the refs some more, and cleaned up the awkward formatting issue. Have I missed anything else? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. All issues resolved, this article is ready to be promoted. Congrats, and good luck! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]