Talk:Golden white-eye/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Sorry for taking so long, my only excuse is Christmas.

Sorry it has taken me this long to address your points - its the whole X-Mas Break for me too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage[edit]

Looks good. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of article[edit]

There's a difficulty here. Normally it would be helpful to describe the species' habitat(s) before going into behaviour, breeding, etc. - see for example [Northern Bald Ibis]]. OTOH in this case I can see how the range material fits with the endangered status. Can you split range and conservation status into 2 sections? It would also be good if you could present a map showing the past and present ranges. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the section. I would have preferred to have left it where it was though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Am I missing something? To me having the distribution up front makes it easier to form mental picures of the behaviour. --Philcha (talk)
I generally agree, but in this case it leaves a very small section, which I try and merge when I can. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the editor I remember saying he / she had given up on FAs because of the WP:MOS nit-picking? IMO quite a lot of WP:MOS or the way it seems to be used is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, which is aimed at non-specialist and often quite young readers. Most "writing for the web" guides, e.g. Web Style Guide, recommend breaking text into fairly small chunks, an approach which goes back to How Users Read on the Web (1997! Jakob Nielsen is the most renowned usability expert). I'm also keen on Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible --Philcha (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy[edit]

  •  Done "defunct genus" needs explanation, as readers with no previous knowledge may think it means something like extinct. I assume it means "no longer used because all the members have been re-assigned to other genera". --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explained. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DoneI wikilinked white-eye. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy says this approach is no longer used. If it's still valid for the Golden White-eye you need to explain why. Otherwise I think you could delete this analysis as H. Doughlas Pratt et al say the bird is a white-eye. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be clear that it wasn't refering to the species common name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, sometimes it's hard to avoid jargon. --Philcha (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "It is possibly most closely related to the Micronesian white-eyes of the genus Rukia, or alternatively basal amongst the white-eyes" needs a ref.
I've added doi and a freely available URL for for the Slikas ref. I consider doi very helpful to other readers as it provides a direct link to the article (or at least the abstract, if it's subscriber-only), and I add free URLs where possible, although they do not always last for so long. I'd have added Google Books URLs for the books if there were any. --Philcha (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The specific epithet marchei refers to the French explorer and author ..." needs a ref. If it's supported by A Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names, move that to the end of the para. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this, it's something I forgot first time round. With refs to books, page numbers are officially required. In the the case of dictionaries etc. I think the name of the entry is more useful as it will not change in new editions etc., and reviewers of "my own" articles have been happy with this. I suppose you could use the chapter= param for this, althout I generally use the contribution= param of {{citation}} (which {{cite book}} annoyingly does not support). Either way, please identify the entry. --Philcha (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I've done some slight copyediting. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat[edit]

  •  Done "It is common in native forests, particularly the limestone forests, but also occurs in open shrubland and suburban areas. On Saipan the only habitats it is generally absent from are the grassy savannas and the marshes around Lake Susupe." needs aref. If the one ref in this section supports the additional text, please move it to the end. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I w-linked "savanna". --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

  •  Done The second half of the first para (beginning " Both the bill and legs are orange as well. The plumage of both sexes is similar ..." needs a ref. If supported by the earlier ref, move that to the end of the para. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the ref uses the pages= param altough only one page is cited. Please either change to the page= param or cite the full range of pages used in this article. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The material beginning "The species also makes rasping shorter calls and ..." needs one or more refs. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I've copyedited the description of plumage, what do you think? --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the lack of comment means you agree. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour[edit]

  •  Done Can you fit in a brief explanation of "diurnal"? --14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It's linked, isn't that enough? I like to assume that readers are capable of following links if they've gone to the trouble of making it this far. Is it that uncommon a word? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you'd better link it to the real article, not a DAB page. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Can you fit in a brief explanation of "sympatric" - or even drop it, as it could not interact with the other birds if there was not at least significant overlap in ranges. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone took it out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, the phrase "In contrast to the sympatric Bridled White-eye ...." is still there. The problem is that the w-linked word redirects to Sympatric speciation, which is unhelpful - it's a common fault of Wikipedia that editors see only those meanings of a word that they are interested in (I can provide amusing examples on request). As a result I often wind up explaining tech terms. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I couldn't find the incident you meant. I can't think of a way to rephrase without making the sentence really convoluted. And although the link goes to sympatric speciation, the first part defines what sympatry means. I'll think about how best to fix this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no way to explain sympatry in the sentence without making it horribly convoluted, so I explained it in the lead instead. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cure's worse than the disease. How about "which forages in groups in the same habitats and is not territorial"? --Philcha (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is clunky and misplaces the emphasis. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "It is also occasionally chased by the fantails if it approaches their nests too closely." needs a ref. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I'm not sure what "socially dominant" and "subservient" bring to the party, as the plain English words already present seem to do the job well. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term I was looking for was subordinate not subservient. D'oh! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diet and feeding[edit]

  •  Done In "Nectar forms part of the diet, and, along with the Micronesian Myzomela and the Bridled White-eye, it is a pollinator of some trees, albeit not one as important as these other species", the natural referent of "it" is "Nectar", but I don't think that's what you meant. Please re-phrase. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tried to clarify. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Insects may be either gleaned from the bark of trees and ...." onwards needs refs. --Philcha (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "but they are more generalised in their diet" is ambiguous --15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done My impression from "A snake in paradise: Disturbance of plant reproduction following extirpation of bird flower-visitors on Guam" is that the Bridled White-eye is the most important pollinator. --Philcha (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't claim it is the most important pollinator, and the Golden White-eye is a more important one on Bruguiera gymnorrhiza than the Bridled White-eye. But I'll add the Bridled. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find an alternative to "preferred substrate". If you use a w-link, be careful. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Microhabitat works, and at least everyone knows what a habitat is and can guess what the meaning would be. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding[edit]

  • {{done} Can you clarify whether it mates for life or is serially monogamous? If the latter, a w-link to Serial monogamy hits the right target. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look; but I seriously doubt whether anyone knows. That sort of thing is learnt from sequential years of study, and that hasn't happened with this species yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so as I suspected none of the sources comment on this. Maybe someone will do longterm studies on the species to find out. Until then we can't say anything. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for looking. I guess it would be boring if scientists knew everything. --Philcha (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at WP:RS once about PhD thesis' and they seemed to think they would be reliable; there simply isn't that much info out there on this species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Masters_Theses (Jan 2009) goes round in circles. The argument that impressed me most is that at least PhD these must satisfy external examiners, while Master's theses only have to satisfy the person doing the marking. --Philcha (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of the thesis was published as a paper, the first part looks more like it would have become a internal paper for the USFWS. The nest predators sections is not available elsewhere as far as I can find. Incidentally, my masters was checked by an external examiner. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's decidedly second-best, but if that's all there is, .... --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Instead of "This species is extremely territorial at the nest", how about "The Golden White-eye chases other birds awy from its nest, including ..."? --Philcha (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, giving the plain-language explanation and teaching the tech phrase. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done What supports "The nests are simple undecorated cups of casuarina needles, grasses, and vines..."? --Philcha (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "altricial" is more jargon. How about "completely dependent on their parents"? --Philcha (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider altricial to be jargon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (2 hefty volumes, despite the name), so it's jargon and needs explanation. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done (after much grumbling). Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited, is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The whole section has the right refs, but it's hard to see what points are supported by what refs. Usually a ref is at the end of all the content it supports. Please re-arrange. --Philcha (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hopefully fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In "introduced green tree skink", "introduced" needs explanation. If we knew how it was introduced, I'd go for "the green tree skink, {w-link}introduced{/w-link} by ...., has also been seen predating ..." --Philcha (talk)
I wikilinked introduced, the fact that it is introduced is not particularly important though, as it doesn't seem to be threatening the species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threats and conservation[edit]

  •  Done This is where a map of the original and present ranges would really help. BTW if you can produced one with appropriate colour-coding, I can add text by using template:Annotated image - it's much clearer than text embedded in images, even with anti-aliasing off. For examples in a bird article I recently passed as GA see Northern Bald Ibis. --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to do this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think File:Northern_Mariana_Islands_map.gif would do as-is. The islands are so small that it's impossible to shrink the map, and the embedded text is readable at the full size. Using it at full-size means it would be over the top to include a "context" map such as File:LocationNorthernMarianas.png --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a different one as the one you suggested didn't show Aguijan. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Need to clarify up-front that the classification of the brown tree snake as a threat and the golden white-eye as critically endangered is precautionary, as Extinction of an Island Forest Avifauna by an Introduced Snake does not mention the golden white-eye, Clpeptornis or marchei in the list of the snake's victims. I've copyedited to "..., which has already eliminated all ..." in a partial attempt to clarify this, but I think more clarification is needed. I'd be inclined to re-order to: golden white-eye at present very abundant, with dense pops; classified as "critical" because a threat has been introduced; how devastating the snake has proved; Aguijan less vulnerable to the snake but more vulnerable to hyper-storms. --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I don't see what supports "... and to control the snakes on Saipan" and I think it needs support as St. Louis Post report comments on the difficulty of controlling the snake biologically. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The St. Louis Post report also mentions intentional intro of Golden-eyes into Mañagaha, do you think it's worth a mention? --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Nope, that is the Bridled White-eye. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I must be getting reviewer's rot. Symptoms include blue spots before the eyes, paranoia, carpal tunnel syndrome and hemorrhoids. --Philcha (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link check[edit]

The Link Checker report for this article has shown some issues with links - none dead or directed, but a few missing accessdate= Please ensure all links used in refs use appropriate citation templates and include the required accessdate= param. --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I have provided access dates for the few web citations. They aren't needed for journal articles where (as a courtesy to readers) I have linked to PDFs of the cited articles, are they? (Please God no.) Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Fraid so. But's it's easy if you have WikEd (and the right browser, not IE or Opera)- just search for "url"; for the first one type in the param using the date of the Link Checker run; copy it; find next and paste in; etc.
BTW I totally recommend the Link Checker. If you forget where it is, it's in the "Tools" section of my User page.--Philcha (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is f***ing ridiculous. When did this stupid new rule creep in? Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is " f***ing ridiculous"? Which "stupid new rule"? --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, look, I understand access date for web references. Websites are transitory and ethereal things that may change or vanish entirely. So when you accessed a website matters, because if there is a discrepancy that would explain it. So I added the access dates because it makes sense. But journal articles are different. Pick up a copy of Science. Do you see access dates in their reference sections next to the journal citations? No, of course not, because they are f****ng journals. Journals don't change over time. A paper written in 1980 will look the same now as it does then. It doesn't matter if I "accessed" it via the internet, through a photocopy handed to me by my supervisor or by wandering into the library and reading the original journal myself, the experience will be the same. The rationale for access dates no longer applies - the thing won't change, and if one of the many websites hosting a copy goes down (or more likely stops allowing free access) the thing has not vanished, it has simply become a touch harder to obtain. The link is not the reference, the reference is the journal, and the url link is only a courtesy for interested readers, and as such there is no meaningful access date if any day between publication and now could be the access date. We don't, after all, give access dates for when read books, do we? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Access dates are useful only for content that is dynamic or ephemeral. I would certainly second the idea that pdf links to books and journals do not need access dates. The URL is merely given for convenience and often one has to resort to author sites due to the nature of the scientific publication industry and although these can be ephemeral, the doi is supposed to be more permanent (although not accessible except to the lucky few). Shyamal (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images[edit]

  •  Done Two good ones of the bird, no copyright problems apparent. --Philcha (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done A map showing the Norther Marianas and Guam would be good. Given the length of the taxobox, there's no room for any further images. --Philcha (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still to do[edit]

  • I'll review "Distribution and status" when we've resolved the structure issue I described above.
  • Review the lead, when the main text is all sorted out.

I don't think this will take long, only minor improvements are needed and I hope I'll be able to pass it as GA by the start of next week. --Philcha (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There still some unresolved issues - not limited to ref formatting. This is so close to GA that it would be silly for it to fail for lack of response to a few points. --Philcha (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that is left is the two ref sticking points, neither of which are strictly speaking necessary. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite (links to orig comments):

It's fine. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox[edit]

  •  Done I added ref name="Slikas" for family.
  •  DoneWhat's the best ref for Oustalet as genus and species authority? -Philcha (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never added citations to the taxobox before (except IUCN status). But.... HBW would do the trick, as it has taxanomic provenance for every species and genus. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added HBW. You never know when you'll meet someone even more awkward than me. --Philcha (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  •  Done I copyedited to avoid change from singular to plural in the sentence about the snake, and to smooth out the one about pop density. Is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Otherwise it's a very neat summary, covering the ground economically. --Philcha (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm passing this as GA (after much grumbling). It's well written, neutral, well-referenced, covers the topic well and AFAIK has no image copyright issues. --Philcha (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_white-eye/GA1&oldid=608125520"