Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tern/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Tern edit

Tern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from some low-level cannibalism and some aphrodisiac eggs, I'm afraid that there is little to offer in the way of sex or violence. This is, however, a major article on a large bird family. I've tried to make it comprehensive without getting too bogged down in the details of the forty-odd species. This is this a WikiProject Bird collaboration. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the Bird Project[reply]

Sources review: Nitpicks

  • Ref 32. Should have the "subscription required" template
  • Ref 34: To be consistent with 32 you could offer a link to the abstract, together with the subscription template. Comment also applies to 40, 48, 49. Alternatively, for consistency you could drop the link in 32.
  • In the cited texts section, the publisher details for the Linnaeus entry could be clearer
  • Non UK readers are unlikely to know where Beckenham is. Compare "Suva, Fiji".

Otherwise, the article looks impeccably sourced. All the links work, citations properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thorough check, Brian. I don't normally link abstracts, and I've now removed the url from 32 which I added in error. I've reformatted and clarified Linnaeus publisher and given translation for Stockholm location. Beckenham now Beckenham, London Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments from Johnbod
  • All these unreferenced facts in the lead are going to be refed later, right? - well, pretty much.
  • It's normal practice not to have references in the lead, especially at FAC. Is there something I've said that isn't sourced later? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I won't quibble about "Their flight is buoyant and graceful", so no. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pics are great (some I've switched to left) but none really show the forked tail or view from below in flight well, like say this
  • "... appears in the poem The Seafarer, written around 1000 AD". Hm - the Exeter Book which it comes from is dated 960-990 or so, but afaik the contents of the anthology are probably older, perhaps considerably so.
  • The text says that the term was was in use in the eighth century, and the date given in my source for the poem is broadly consistent with those you suggest. It's obviously possible that it was earlier, do you have a ref for that? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't I think have one for the current text, except to a bird book. Generally criticism of AS poetry is evasive about dates, and certainly avoids statements like that - as with say Beowulf and other works, some think the text of the Seafarer we have developed in stages with more than one author, and I think generally the possibility that the language of the poems was updated is accepted. Gordon's edition is still I think standard; I see her note 23, continued on p. 35, isn't sure the bird meant was a "tern" rather than a small gull, and notes that forms of the word were used to gloss the Latin for "starling" also - here and back a bit. This older book [2] thinks it, or the main part of it (pp 28&32) may be as old as Beowulf, which might be 6th or 7th century. Oral Poetry in the Seafarer, Jackson J. Campbell, Speculum , Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1960), pp. 87-96, JSTOR, esp. p.90, addresses the question without giving any date, also Another Look at Oral Poetry in the Seafarer, Wayne A. O'Neil, Speculum , Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1960), pp. 596-600, [3], esp. p597 'the 19th and earlier 20th century view that the Seafarer was an earlier pagan poem [so C7th at least] lengthened and recast in later AS days for Christian didactic purposes'. Later C20th criticism tends to find Biblical & Latin parallels throughout & see it as wholly a production of the Xtian period (without attempting any more precise date), adopting a traditional pre-Xtian style. You should either drop any attempt to date it, or say something like: "... appears in the poem The Seafarer, written in the 9th century or earlier...." Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Juvenile terns typically have scaly brown- or yellow-tinged upperparts" - "scaly" from feathers in 2 colours is this? sounds a bit odd.
  • the yellow or brown colour depends on the species. I've expanded to explain the "scaly" bit — Juvenile terns typically have brown- or yellow-tinged upperparts, and the feathers have dark edges which give the plumage a scaly appearance. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sooty Tern lacks waterproof plumage, but many other species don't - is that right?
  • The Sooty is the only tern that is stated not to be waterproof, which is particularly relevant since it's entirely ooceanic. Expanded slightly to They lack waterproof plumage, so they cannot rest on the sea. Where they spend the years prior to breeding is unknown. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given many marine species are said to live by diving, presumably taking them underwater, it is a bit puzzling there are only two references to one species that doesn't have waterproof plumage. If the others do, this should be made clear. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is tricky. Not all diving birds are waterproof. Even the cormorants, which swim underwater, need to dry out at intervals. Searches for "waterproof plumage" and "tern" either go to Sooty Tern or give contradictory results. I suppose the point is that since terns don't swim and are only briefly immersed when diving, it doesn't matter whether they are waterproof or not (I have a book, The Common Tern, which doesn't mention waterproofing or its absence in 100+ pages, and none of the three tern species FAs mention waterproofing). The problem with Sooty is that if it's not on land and it's not waterproof, where is it? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally seems comprehensive & well-written; referencing leans heavily on "de Hoyo et al".

Johnbod (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although there is a huge amount of literature on individual species, particularly those that are common in Europe and the US, in writing a family-level article is necessary to give a overall picture. The lengthy de Hoyo introduction to the section on Sternidae does this very well, and I couldn't find anything else as comprehensive. All of the material from de Hoyo could be referenced to primary sources, but we are actively encouraged to use good secondary sources where possible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough, but it would be good to add clearer info if it turns up. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review and comments, let me know if anything still needs fixing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Points addressed, except for plumage just above, where clear info seems lacking. Generally a fine article. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look.

  • "Sterna milne-edwardsii" Worth a link? Nothing wrong with redlinks.
  • "Chlidonias is the marsh terns" Weird singular/plural
  • "The reason for the dark plumage is unknown, but it has been suggested that in tropical areas, where food resources are scarce, the less conspicuous colouration makes it harder for other noddies to detect a feeding bird." Are you talking about all dark terns here, or just dark noddies?
  • the source refers specifically to noddies, so I've amended slightly to make that clearer. Of the sea terns, only Inca is all-dark, and that isn't mentioned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plumage type, including head pattern, is linked to the phylogeny of the terns, and the pale-capped, dark-bodied noddies are believed to have diverged earlier than the other genera from an ancestral white-headed gull.[13]" On that note, is the Inca Tern more distant?
  • I've tweaked to make it clear that it is the head cap that is the main indicator and that the partially capped Sternula and Onychoprion are the next most ancient. The cladogram in the ref illustrates this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "asynchronously" is a dablink
  • I'm left wondering about the relationships between different terns. A cladogram with all the different species would obviously be very difficult, but do you have any literature on the relationships between the genera?
  • the response above adds a little to this, but there isn't much beyond the genetic data to justify splitting the sea terns, which until recently were mostly in one genus, as the text says. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tern skins and feathers were used for making items of clothing such as capes and hats, and this became a large-scale activity in the second half of the nineteenth century when it became fashionable to use feathers in hatmaking." By whom?
  • "population of less than 50 birds" Fewer, surely?
  • I think this is not uncommon with bird articles. The thinking appears to be that there should be a scientific category, and a common name version that is more accessible. As you imply, this is probably a matter for another forum Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few edits. Generally looks great. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review, edits and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I'd still quite like a cladogram showing the relationship between different genera, which I feel may be possible given the sources we have- however, I'm happy to admit that this may not be possible or desirable for some reason I haven't considered. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, now that a helpful cladogram has been added to the article. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for support, I'll have another look at the cladogram, I've thought of a simpler approach Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (moral or otherwise as WP birds member) - no deal-breakers noted but a query or two....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thinocori needs some sort of explaining or linking - unusual word leaving the reader with no idea what it means.
The atypical Inca Tern has mainly dark plumage - if the "atypical" just refers to plumage, it is unneeded.
can we link Norfolk dialect? or even just the region if all else fails...means something different down this way....

Thanks for review, comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (own work, USGov). Sources and authors provided (1 comment).

  • File:Chlidonias_niger.jpg - this would be better with a clear source link. However, the uploader (with a clean upload history) is inactive since 2006. AGF, that the PD-USGov-FWS is correct. OK. GermanJoe (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe, I hadn't spotted the source deficiency, but I've now added the url for the USFWS image to the Commons page. Obviously PD as a US federal agency Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Would you mind dropping me a brief note on my talk, how did you find this image? (I tried, but failed) Thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on del Hoyo et al by Aa77zz

The article cites the chapter on terns in Volume 3 of the Handbook of Birds of the World. The article should credit the authors of the chapter which are M. Gochfeld & J. Burger and should give the chapter title. Also the isbn is that of Volume 4 rather than Volume 3 and there is a typo in the first name of the second editor. The reference should be similar to:

  • Gochfeld, M.; Burger, J. (1996). "Family Sternidae (Terns)". In del Hoyo, Josep; Elliott, Andrew; Sargatal, Jordi (eds.). Handbook of Birds of the World. Vol. 3: Hoatzin to Auks. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. pp. 624–667. ISBN 978-84-87334-20-7.. (I'm not certain of the last page of the chapter - I can see that the following chapter starts at p. 668). The cite should be to Gochfeld & Burger pp.624-645. Aa77zz (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comment, reformatted as suggested with minor changes for consistency with style of other refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I use the cite template as in my example but it's your choice. Even dedicated ornithologists must hesitate at the price of the volumes. Aa77zz (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, I only accessed the family intro thanks to the help of another Bird Project member, which is why it was deficient in citation details. I can't afford the books, unfortunately. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Promoting but pls take a look and consider whether such common animals as cat, rat, etc, really need linking... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tern/archive1&oldid=1046370404"