Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pallas's leaf warbler/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) 21:39, 8 October 2016 [1].

Pallas's leaf warbler edit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly two years since I nominated here, but I'm back with the charismatic "seven-striped sprite". This is a Siberian bird species, common in its homeland, but a treat in Europe. I hope the rules haven't changed too much, and that my submission doesn't show too many signs of rust Jimfbleak (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto edit

Support -- A facinating article, Jim, and one I've no problems in supporting:

  • "The English name of Pallas's leaf warbler commemorates the German zoologist Peter Simon Pallas, who discovered it on the Ingoda River in Siberia in May 1772, naming it as Motacilla proregulus in 1811". -- Why did it take nearly 40 years to name this species? I'm also not keen on the +ing. Would it be impertinent of me to suggest splitting the last part of this sentence with a semi-colon and saying: "named it Motacilla proregulus in 1811"? Also, after "Pallas", but before "who", is there really any need for the comma?
  • "In the case of the former subspecies of Pallas's leaf warbler, even though they differ only slightly in plumage, the southern forms are very distinctive vocally, with songs and calls differing markedly from those of the nominate race, and DNA analysis has confirmed these forms to be sufficiently distinct that they are now treated as separate species, namely." -- This is a little too long for comfortable reading. It split this off when you speak of the DNA.
  • "In Asia, it can be distinguished..." -- If this were a biography about a person, the noun would be preferred at the start of a new paragraph rather than a pronoun. Why is this article any different?
  • "It has therefore been proposed that once the warblers reach northwest Europe, they then reorientate to a south easterly direction." -- who "proposed" this?
  • "Pallas's leaf warbler is not shy, but its unobtrusive arboreal lifestyle makes it difficult to observe. particularly in thick foliage." -- Check punctuation here.
  • "It is widespread, common and locally abundant in Russia and NE China." -- The "Pallas's leaf warbler" would be better for a new paragraph.

All fixes at your discretion. CassiantoTalk 17:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cassianto, many thanks. I've made these changes. It took Pallas decades to finally publish Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica which has the formal description, and I've tweaked the text a little to reflect this. Otherwise I've followed your comments. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cassianto, many thanks for your support. This has always been one of my favourite birds, and Andy Stoddart's book convinced me there was enough material for an FAC Jimfbleak (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Great to see you back at FAC!

  • "the German zoologist Peter Simon Pallas, who discovered it" Presumably it was known to peoples native to the area before he "discovered" it. Perhaps this could be rephrased?
  • That's actually arguable, given the similarity of these species, even to professional scientists. The UK's members of this genus were only finally resolved in 1840, and willow tit was even later. Nevertheless, changed to "found"Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you attached to your dashes? They look non-standard. Are they permitted by WP:DASH? Your style seems to alternate; compare "0.5–10 metres" with "12 – 13 days" (though I allow that I may just be confused here).
  • "trill" is undefined jargon. (As, for that matter, are "song", "call" and "rattle".)
  • Now linked. I think the meanings of the other three are self-evident enough Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the one-line paragraph at the end of the description section could be merged with the previous? You could more explicitly join them with "by contrast" or "in contrast" or similar.
  • Is "shy" the right word? "particularly cautious" or "overcautious" may be better?
  • The two vertical pictures in a row perhaps aren't ideal; they look a tad cluttered.
See below Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any description of the eggs themselves? (I see now that it's mentioned with the cuckoo; maybe it could be moved? And perhaps the cuckoo should be mentioned with predators/parasites; any information available?)
  • Moved description. I couldn't find anything on predators (although there are obvious candidates like the Eurasian, Chinese and Japanese sparrowhawks) or parasites. There may be something tucked away in an obscure Russian or Chinese publication, but I have doubts whether this small Siberian waif has actually been studied in that detail. I was pleased to find the cuckoo to be honest. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very readable. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the review and kind words, all done Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Cautious) Support. The article seems very strong, but I will leave as an open question whether there are any sources/key facts missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support. I'm pretty sure that there is nothing significant in English missing, and a Google Translate-assisted church found nothing obvious in Russian or Chinese. If there is something in those languages, it doesn't appear to be referenced in English sources. I found sources in French, German, Swedish and Latin, most of which I didn't need to use, but nothing in the Asian languages Jimfbleak (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • I thought we only needed the status on our Florida servers, added template as suggested now Jimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant home country, not host country. We need the image to be PD in its country of origin and in Florida for Commons; on enwp, it needs to be PD only in Florida. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks fine, but I repeat my comment about the two vertical images giving the article a slightly cluttered feel. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see the problem, not sure what to do about it, though. The other unused Commons images of the warbler adds nothing to those already there, and I like the Gould image, which is clearly very relevant. Should I dump the habitat image? Thanks for image review Jimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz edit

Glad to see you back. The article looks good and there isn't much to quibble with.

  • The genus Phylloscopus was introduced by Friedrich Boie and not by his brother Heinrich Boie. See Boie, Friedrich (1826). "Generalübersicht der ornithologischen Ordnungen Familien und Gattugen". Isis von Oken (in German). 19. col. 972. (author as F. Boie on previous page). Aa77zz (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that, not the first time I've confused relatives, amended in text. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for interest - I'm not suggesting you include the info in the article but John Latham had already described the species in his A General Synopsis of Birds published in 1783 but he didn't provide a Latin name and a formal taxonomic description. Latham is cited by Pallas. Latham's brief description is here (n. 61): Above greenish: beneath pale-coloured: on the crown of the head a pale streak: over the eye a stripe of yellow. Inhabits Russia. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this. The entry is marked Yellow-browed W and appears to be describing that species rather than Pallas's. There is no mention of a yellow rump, the most striking feature of Pallas's and an obvious distinction from yellow-browed. Also, although it's more ambiguous, "on the crown of the head a pale streak" sounds a better description of a feature often found in yellow-browed than the more obvious yellow of Pallas's (HBW actually uses "pale" to describe the stripe of yellow-browed, whereas Pallas's is "warm buffy yellow anteriorly, paler yellowish or whitish at rear"). I may be missing something, but Latham appears to be describing what he says he is, rather than Pallas's warbler. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz, thanks for kind words and for reviewing this article. I'd be grateful for any further clarification of your second point Jimfbleak (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only reporting the content of the two primary sources. I agree that Latham's description suggests the yellow-browed warbler - but his use of the name is probably just coincidence as the species now known as the yellow-browed warbler presumably wasn't generally recognised until described by Blyth in 1842. (in his report Blyth doesn't specify an English name). Latham is notoriously unreliable (see the wiki article) but if he were working from a drawing, then the yellow rump may not have been apparent. I notice that neither of the two photos in the article shows the yellow rump. Aa77zz (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31 Snow & Perrins 1998 - why is there p. 1324 and p1337–1339?

I've add some urls in the references. The links should be stable - they are to the Biodiversity Heritage Library and to British Birds.

Support - an excellent article. Aa77zz (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support and help, particularly finding links I missed. I've fixed the errant pagination in Snow & Perrins, some of which appears to have transfered from previous use in Common Chiffchaff. Thanks for the explanation for Latham, I'm inclined to not include it, given the confusion it adds, thanks again Jimfbleak (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber edit

Looking now:

It is similar to several other Asian warblers, including some that were formerly considered to be its subspecies, but its distinctive vocalisations aid identification. - should there be a "for" after the "but" in the last clause?

Otherwise looking good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, thanks for review. but for its distinctive vocalisations aid identification. seems ungrammatical unless there is a "which" too, as but for its distinctive vocalisations which aid identification.. I've just changed "but" to "although" for now, but if you prefer the but for... which... version, please change it, it's no big deal, thanks again Jimfbleak (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I scanned the sentence incorrectly and didn't see the verb. Still, I think "although" is better than "but", hence no prose-clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review and support, Jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Jim, long time no contact. A few points:

  • "It is strongly migratory, wintering mainly in southern China and adjacent areas of southeast Asia, although increasing numbers are found in Europe in autumn." ... Is it ambiguous? That is, do you mean that numbers increase every autumn in Europe (as a normal part of migratory oscillations), or that increasingly we're finding them in Europe in autumn, like, per climate change?
  • Perhaps add "of" to make it flow grammatically (without "of" might be ok in a table header or section heading ("short texts"), but it's awkward in full prose): "It therefore is evaluated as "least concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)." -> "It is therefore evaluated as of "least concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)." I swapped the order of two words, too.
  • Comma after "Passal"? "and" before "named"? The second looks like a cut-and-paste error.
  • "comprises" might be to your liking instead of "contains".
  • "formerly separated as the genus Abrornis."—looks like a post-qualifier for the species, not the last item in that in-line list. Perhaps "; the species was formerly ..."? Except now I'm getting confused about species and genus and subspecies. Why not place that last phrase in the next paragraph: wouldn't that be more logical thematically?
  • "were accepted"—me not understand.
  • "previously" could be removed.
  • "had not always been accepted" -> "were not always accepted" ... I think ... perhaps you might check whether my hunch is wrong.
  • Long sentence with "with + -ing" connecter. "The breeding ranges of Gansu leaf warbler and Chinese leaf warbler overlap in southern Gansu, but the species are separated ecologically, with the Gansu leaf warbler found in taller forest habitats and the Chinese leaf warbler using lower, often scrubby habitats." – Why not: "The breeding ranges of Gansu leaf warbler and Chinese leaf warbler overlap in southern Gansu, but the species are separated ecologically: the Gansu leaf warbler is found in taller forest habitats, and the Chinese leaf warbler uses lower, often scrubby habitats."?
  • Trills redlink. Really?

I've only read the first part. Nice work. Tony (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • TONY, thanks for your comments. I made these edits in response. I hope they address the issues. I didn't think the first point was ambiguous, but I've tweaked it to try to clarify. The increase in numbers is not disputed, but as you can see in the "Other movements" section, the reasons are still a matter of debate Jimfbleak (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon edit

With the disclaimer that I know nothing about biology, I liked this a lot. There's very little to quibble with.

  • "from Siberia east to northern Mongolia and northeastern China" puzzled me. Siberia spans such a wide area. Maybe southern Siberia? Or from the Altai mountains in Siberia?
  • With such an odd name, I think an explanation should be included in the lead
  • "differing markedly" -> differ?
  • "syn." -> does this have to be abbreviated?
  • "It breeds at up to 1,500–1,700 metres (4,900–5,600 ft) in southern Russia. " -> odd that it preceeds the broader statement "Pallas's leaf warbler breeds in Siberia from the Altai mountains east to the Sea of Okhotsk, northern Mongolia, northeastern China and possibly North Korea"
  • the paragraphs were for habitat (including altitudinal range and distribution respectively. The altitude data has a location because that is where the relevant study was conducted, tweaked to clarify Jimfbleak (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tadzhikistan is an unusual spelling. Why not the standard Tajikistan?
  • "Tunisia, Morocco, Israel, Turkey, Iran, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Bangladesh, Taiwan, and Alaska" -> It would seem useful to make all these places a link and not just Alaska
  • Convention at FAC is to not link sovereign countries or continents Jimfbleak (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe a bit more about the brood parasite: how frequent? where? impact?
  • "NE China" -> inconsistent with rest of article where northeastern is used
  • there are a few ISBN 10s, I think 13 is preferred
  • I started doing this, but it was reverted by Nihiltres, another admin as part of a technical clean-up, see article history, so I guess it stays as is. Never been a problem mixing 10/13 previously anyway Jimfbleak (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimfbleak and Edwininlondon: I reverted that edit because it broke an ISBN; there's no problem with converting to 13-digit ones as far as I know, but I avoid doing it proactively in case there are listings for the book using only the 10-digit ISBN (conversion is nontrivial thanks to the check digit). Newer books (starting 2007, IIRC?) should always use 13-digit ISBNs, since that's now standard. Either way, I would definitely recommend that ISBNs be hyphenated for improved readability (also nontrivial because the hyphens are placed according to the ISBN range data), and on that note I'll toot my own horn and mention the ISBN tool I wrote that can validate, convert, and hyphenate ISBNs, or offer suggestions for fixing invalid ones. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the Phylloscopi or Willow-Warbiers" --> "On the Phylloscopi or Willow-Warblers"
eek! done Jimfbleak (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • extra space before comma in "Warbler , Cuculus"
  • Not keen on Further reading. Is there anything in this book that is useful to mention in the article so you can kill this section?
  • It's the only monograph on this species that I know of. I used it to access sources, but not directly since it's self-published. Let me think about this Jimfbleak (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is to keep the EL, especially as previous reviewers haven't commented. However, if you disagree, I won't lose sleep if you remove it

Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Edwininlondon, thanks for review, I'll fix the remaining points as and when, and let you know hen I'm done Jimfbleak (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon I've replied to your comments above. Please note that if you have any further points, Ill be away for a couple of days looking for migrants on the east coast, so I may not reply immediately (bit early for Pallas's, but you never know).

Thanks again for review, Jimfbleak (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • I was on vacation when this was nominated, and when I was back it already had enough supports for a pass, but I have a few comments anyway, since we haven't had a new living bird nominated since 2014! FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The breeding ranges of Gansu leaf warbler and Chinese leaf warbler" Why no "the"?
DoneJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps give a date for the old illustration in the caption?
DoneJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a strong supercilium" Explain iI mentioned this because it's possible that the genus may be resurrected, but not by any reputable authority yetn parenthesis?
DoneJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "once separated as the genus Abrornis" What is this now? It doesn't redirect anywhere...
retained in genus, I've added that. I mentioned this because it's possible that the genus may be resurrected, but not yet accepted by any reputable authority yetJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No subspecies left of this species? This sentence seems to imply there are: "apart from the nominate form that breeds in northern Asia, two to four other accepted subspecies bred much further south" If those are just the ones that were split off, the info seems redundant there.
Tweaked the historical data a bit to hopefully clarify, added further on that it's now monotypic Jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pallas's leaf warbler appears to have diverged from its closest relatives" Which relatives, those that were split?
expanded Jimfbleak (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and DNA analysis has confirmed these forms to be sufficiently distinct that they are now treated as separate species" When did this split/DNA analysis occur?
Done Jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first known European record was from Dalmatia" When? You state dates for other sightings below.
1829, added Jimfbleak (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German ornithologist Heinrich Gätke, working on the then-British island of Heligoland" When?
1837, done Jimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thereafter, this species became increasing common" Increasingly?
done Jimfbleak (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eduardo de Juana has therefore been proposed that" He has been proposed?
DoneJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they may join mixed-species foraging flocks" Including what other species?
As you might expect, it's usually tits and other warblers, but I can't find an RS source I can access to support this Jimfbleak (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've not entirely given up on this though, will continue looking Jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jimfbleak (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who first formally described." It?
DoneJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk, I hope you enjoyed your vacation. Many thanks for review. My edits are summarised here, I'll expand on the mixed species flock if an when I find a suitable source, thanks again Jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 14:37, 6 October 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/Pallas%27s_leaf_warbler/archive1&oldid=1138468632"