Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bee-eater/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 via FACBot (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2016 [1].

Bee-eater edit

Nominators: Sabine's Sunbird talk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a family of colourful, conspicuous birds that feed mainly on venomous flying insects such as bees and wasps. I usually try to say something witty in my nominations, but here the beauty of these birds can do the talking. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Jim, Jim, Jim. What a missed opportunity. Look people, we hope you'll bee impressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, yes, I'm slipping.... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz edit

Lead

  • need to mention that Meropidae contains 3 genera and 27 species
  • Done, it originally had the number of species, but I took that out because of the potential split of green bee-eater (accepted by HBW) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps mention that the plumage of the two sexes is generally quite similar
  • "the number depending on the species." Why not around 5 eggs? (Fry HBW Breeding has "generally about five eggs in a clutch")

Taxonomy

  • I'm uncomfortable with the 2016 year for Fry's HBW alive family article. The text is identical to the 2001 print edition (see differences) - and thus the text doesn't mention studies published in the last 15 years. I suggest just omitting the year - but keeping the access date.
  • I'm surprised that there hasn't been a phylogenetic study on the relationship between the bee-eaters, rollers, hoopoe and kingfishers. (I've looked but can't find one)
  • The 2007 molecular phylogenetic study by Marks et al should be mentioned in the text, however unsatisfactory - see below

Figure showing the phylogenetic tree

  • Typo - M. orieentalis -> M. orientalis
  • M. australis is M. gularis australis and therefore the two gularis taxa should be combined.
  • This whole tree is unsatisfactory - and it may be better to omit it from the article. It is based on Figure 3 in Marks et al. The difficulty is that at the bottom of the figure Meropogon forsteni is shown as a sister to Merops breweri. Also Merops bulocki and Merops bullockoides are shown as basal to Meropogon forsteri. Marks et al include two other figures that have different arrangements. The authors discuss the difficulty of placing the above species. They lack nuclear sequence data for Meropogon forsteri and Merops leschenaulti as they could only determined the mtDNA sequences (from museum specimens). In Figure 1 they omit these sequences altogether. (I don't understand the statistical methods used in phylogenetic studies).
I am not wedded to the tree either but some indication of relatedness is more useful than an alphabetic list of species even if the sampling is slightly incomplete at this point in time - having the tree will ensure that a future editor will update it to more recent studies. The third tree is a maximum parsimony tree with bootstrap measures of confidence - so the only changes I can think of are to include more explicit caveats (although molecular phylogeny is always a hypothesis and the methods do have their consequences) in the caption. After all Wikipedia and science itself are about verifiability and continuing refinement - not about absolute truth. Shyamal (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • Specify number of primaries (10)(outer often very small), secondaries (13) and rectrices (12) (p.29 in Bee-eaters)(HBW has 12 tail)

Behaviour

  • "Helpers" are first mentioned in this section. Perhaps better to insert here the sentence now at the end of the Breeding section where you explain that they are normally the male offspring from a previous year.

Diet and feeding

  • The first paragraph needs a reference
  • Mention that bee-eaters and kingfishers regurgitate pellets of indigestible material (p.207 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW General Habits "2cm long black oblongs")

Breeding

  • Mention that no nesting material is used (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • Specify colour of eggs (already mentioned in lead) - white as is usual for cavity nesters (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • Mention pellets trodden underfoot (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • Mention that parents and nestlings defaecate in nest (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • perhaps mention smell (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • mention that incubation starts soon after the first egg is laid (p.19 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW has "with the first eggs laid")
  • eggs laid at daily intervals. (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • incubation is around 20 days (p.19 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW Breeding)
  • both birds incubate during the day, just the female at night (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • eggs hatch asynchronously (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • if food is short only the older chicks survive (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • nestling period is about 30 days (Fry HBW Breeding)

References

  • Ref 9 - The reference to the HBW alive article on the Asian green bee-eater lists the wrong authors.
  • Wouldn't it be better to rely entirely on HBW alive - rather than having some cites to the print edition and others to the online version (currently identical)?
  • Because Sabine's Sunbird and I edited this largely sequentially, we used different versions. I wondered about this myself. I'll change them all to the on-line version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cite for the quote "the most complex of any bird species anywhere in the world".[11]:298 look odd as it is the only use of this syntax in the article. The text is in Fry HBW online General Habits.

I'll have another look at the article next week. Aa77zz (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz thanks very much for your detailed review and the tweaks you made to the text. I think I've dealt with all the issues except those relating to the phylogeny table. As I said, I don't mind whether it stays or goes, but I'd like input from the editor who added it and my co-nom if they wish to comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz, I've now made the changes regarding the cladogram, and Shyamal has responded above. I can't access the Marks paper anyway, but I think their is some merit in having at least an outline of possible relationships. Your call, I guess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more comments when I can:

  • The lead has "All have long down-turned bills and pointed wings,..." The wings of some species are rounded - as is stated in the body of the article. HBW alive has "The wing shape of bee-eaters varies from round-ended to pointed," - Aa77zz (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've rewritten that sentence since I don't find the comparison with swallows convincing either, I've seen a dozen species of bee-eaters and never thought they resembled hirundines. Now All have long down-turned bills and medium to long wings, which may be pointed or round. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on Breeding has "The eggs do not all hatch at the same time,..". This agrees with the source but the eggs of the Australian rainbow bee-eater can all hatch within a 24h period (Fry et al 1992 p.277) or HBW alive "most eggs hatch on same day") see here. I suggest inserting "For most species" or "generally" etc. Aa77zz (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "For most species" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All looks good
With improvements to DNA sequencing, publication of phylogenetic trees based on insufficient data will hopefully disappear but there will still be differences of opinion on species/sub-species and the extent of genera. Aa77zz (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support. I agree with your comment on phylogeny, but we can but hope that future developments will clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nicely written, reasonably approachable for a non birder. Query I struggle with "in which the wings of both sexes are held out the birds are calling" Is this some ornithological jargon? ϢereSpielChequers 22:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ϣere, no, it's self-generated gibberish. I'd tried too hard to make it concise, now expanded and hopefully more intelligible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the Merops bee-eaters have a line through the eye" gave me a very different mental image than the black bar on this bird's face. Would it be possible to put an image such as this beside that text with a caption ending "with a black line through the eye"? ϢereSpielChequers 22:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Just looking at the existing images, it's clear that even the narrowest aren't really lines, so changed to " black bar through the eye" in text and in caption to your suggested image, always nice to have a Featured Picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments looking ok at a quick glance - will give more of a look later, but just for the moment noting that given we are talking about the bee-eaters as a group, we really need some material on their higher-order relationships as it is fascinating. It looks like there are three papers discussing this. I'll chase Mayr 2009 and continue to discuss on talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas, I'll try to put together something from the new paper Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • At first glance, the images seem a bit crammed, and one photo (white-fronted bee-eater) is used twice. Perhaps some could be pruned? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synonyms?
  • I'm not sure what you are after here. For family articles, we don't normally list synonyms of genera or species (see tern, nuthatch), which are detailed in the relevant lower level articles. if I've misunderstood, please clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean family level synonyms. For example, Raphidae is tehnically a synonym of Columbidae (not of Raphinae, as one might think), since the former was found to not be a distinct family... But it's not so important. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never come across a synonym, and a quick search yesterday failed to turn up anything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, thanks for having a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have more later. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the classification text ready to read, or is it still being worked out? FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been no further comments on the talk page since I rewrote the second paragraph to include the newer papers, so I'm assuming it's acceptable on content. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who created the bird subfamily, Meropia, in 1815." What is the status of this name today?
  • The current Meropidae is just that name adjusted to modern rules, ending -idae. Raffinesque's family Cortamphia is clearly a taxonomic nonsense, so the bee-eaters were a family rather than a subfamily Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although the position of the purple-bearded bee-eater appears anomalous." Why?
  • "from the Pleistocene have been found in Austria, and there are Holocene specimens" Perhaps state how many years ago this was.
  • "sister to all other Coraciiformes." Perhaps state in parenthesis what other grops are included therein.
  • "but suggested new genera" Such as?
  • That was more of a challenge than I anticipated, so ubiquitous has Fry's treatment been for many years. I found one example dealt with in his PhD thesis. I tweaked out "new", I don't think any are still current Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pairs sitting or roosting together are often so close together" The last togetehr seems redundant/repetitive?
  • "attempt to lay eggs in their neighbour's nests" Easter egg links are discouraged, so I'd spell out and link nest parasitism in parenthesis, or similar.
  • How many individuals are in clans and colonies?
  • Dust bathing and purple-bearded bee-eater is duplinked.
  • "returned to the perch to be beaten against the perch to be killed and broken up." Repetitive.
rephrased Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is to ride the back of bustards." Shouldn't backs be plural?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any theories as to why these birds prefer bees and wasps?
All I can find is that the trait may have arisen because hymenopterans are very numerous and ubiquitous, added a sentence to that effect. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but seems there's a typo? "may have because of" FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the brain moved faster than the typing! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hole-nesting lifestyle of bee-eaters means that they tend to carry a higher burden of external parasites than non-hole-nesting bird species." How is this correlated?
  • I assumed that it's because of the more insanitary conditions in a tunnel or hole than an open nest, but the source doesn't actual say that or otherwise explain the assertion, I'll remove the sentence if you think it's incorrect or lacking justification, it's not critical Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colonies are increasing concentrated into the" Increasingly?
  • Since the culture section mentions ancient depictions, wouldn't it be more interesting to show one of these than a bust?
  • Yes, but I couldn't find any suitable image, let alone one with a free licence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bee-eaters are fairly catholic" Seems too informal?
  • I don't think "catholic" is an informal term by any definition. It's used here in it's primary meaning, and OED gives no indication of main use of the word being informal, but changed anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stinger is removed by" Only stated in intro.
  • "by sallies from" Likewise.
  • It says they hunt from perches, so I assume it's "sallies" that's the problem, removed from lead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all fixes look good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Ok, looking through...

but birds apparently of these families were distinct at least forty million ago, - the apparently is oddly placed - what about "ancestors of these families diverged from those of bee-eaters at least forty million ago"
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the most complex of any bird species anywhere in the world". - I think we can rephrase without quotes. "more complex/intricate than any other bird species"?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bee-eaters are seasonally monogamous, and some species are monogamous over multiple years, although migratory species form new pair bonds each breeding season. - "monogamous" used twice, try to reword
Rewritten, is that better? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.

Ok then, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for review and support! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, thanks, now requested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I decided to have a go myself -- most of the licensing looks satisfactory (mainly users' own work or Flickr) except for:

In neither case was it obvious to me that the stated author had released the work... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, thanks for that. The images were in the original article, and I stupidly never thought to check. Replaced with images of the same species. One is an FP(!) and the other is a verified Flickr release, so hopefully OK, thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:22, 10 December 2016 (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/Bee-eater/archive1&oldid=755423220"