Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red-headed myzomela/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2017 [1].

Red-headed myzomela edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about. another honeyeater. An old GA in good shape, I've given it a spit and boot polish and am tossing it up here as I feel it is within striking distance of FA. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim edit

Just some minor nitpicking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • M. erythrocephala erythrocephala, M. erythrocephala infuscata—suggest M. e. erythrocephala, M. e. infuscata
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is sexually dimorphic and the male—I'd put a semicolon instead of "and"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a member of the genus—the intended subject of "it" is far, far away, needs repeating
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • primary centre of origin for the Myzomela erythrocephala subspecies —shouldn't that be species, or am I misunderstanding?
I have added "two" as it means where the complex arose from. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • Will review more thoroughly soon, but I see there's a range map[2] on Commons, why not use it? It could need a source to support its information, though. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
good catch. added map, and added source for range data to map on commons Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Myzomela erythrocephala was first described by John Gould in 1840" Usually thew first sentence of the article body should mention the subject by the name in the title? Why not something like "The red-headed myzomela was described and named as Myzomela erythrocephala by John Gould in 1840"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and still bears its original name" Do we really need this information, seems self-evident, unless otherwise stated?
ok, removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a large Meliphagoidea superfamily" The large?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "primary centre of origin for the two Myzomela erythrocephala subspecies." Is the binomial needed here? You start the sentence by mentioning the common name.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. e. erythrocephala is listed as being of least concern by the IUCN,[1] because the population is widespread, however Myzomela e. infuscata" Perhaps be consistent in whether abbreviating names or not throughout the article.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sumba myzomela is similar but slightly smaller than red-headed myzomela" Why no definite the for the latter species?
mistake. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "include spiders and insects such as beetles, bugs, wasps and caterpillars" What is meant by "bugs" here, to the exclusion of the other groups mentioned?
hemipterans - linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a good deal of double-linking throughout the article.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "engaging in aggressive bill-wiping" What is that?
pretty much as it says - wiping the beak prominently to display in front of other birds Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - to get this through quickly, I've reviewed the images, which are all fine, sourcing and license-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One to go, then I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice to see a steady stream of older GAs getting the treatment... FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz edit

I've made a series of small edits - please check that you are happy.

yr changes look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 Higgins, P.J.; Peter, J.M.; Steele, W.K. (2001). This needs a page number and is the same volume as listed in Sources. I suggest using sfn.
I meant to change that to something else - done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While there is no reliable information on incubation and feeding," Lewis 2010 reports that only females have a brood patch so can we infer that only the females incubate the eggs?
Added this, though Lewis seems pretty cautious in assuming such. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
entered now - I have trouble finding somewhere to slot lifespan in, so put it near the other mention of banding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead and the Feeding section have "sallying for insects." where sallying links to hawking. Noske 1996 Table 8 on page 462 lists the foraging techniques (as percentages): gleaning=14.1%, hawking=0.8%, probing=84.9% which suggests the hawking is unusual. Perhaps the lead should mention gleaning rather than hawking. Check that Higgins (HANZAB) mentions hawking. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking online, I came across this interesting paper, which highlights some inconsistency among sources differentiating between sallying and hawking. Having looked on page 1161 of HANZAB now, it does seem to indicate gleaning as more common I have rejigged to highlight gleaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the red-headed myzomela diverged from that of the black-breasted myzomela around 4 million years ago." The cite is to Marki et al 2017. I assume this information comes from the cladogram shown in Fig 4. Now I understand almost nothing about the statistical tests using in phylogeny but the numbers look bad. The Fig 4 cladogram shows the posterior probabilities for the red-headed - black-breasted node as 0.34 which is very low. In the discussion of Myzomela on page 526 the article has "Consistent with previous studies we corroborate the monophyly of Myzomela, but the relationships within the genus are complex and many are unsupported." and "but the poor resolution of this group hinders a robust assessment of their phylogenetic relationships and biogeographic history." I worry that this means that one shouldn't believe the timescale in this section of the cladogram. It may be that timing is roughly correct and it is just the branching that hasn't been determined. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I recalibrated to this to make it more reserved/qualified. I get so happy when I see cladograms I sometimes forget to check the numbers..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: - I would like you to respond to my point about "sallying for insects." in the lead before I support. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oops/sorry. I meant to read and digest source material again. Hang on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with a comment - M. e. erythrocephala is listed as being of least concern by the IUCN,[1] because the population is widespread, however M. e. infuscata is listed as near threatened. listed by whom? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is listed as such in this book, which is referenced in the Conservation status section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reference, so the listing authority is the Australian government? Is it threatened as a whole, or just the Aussie population thereof? That's what I'd assume, but that's because I know a bit out this. Could help to make it clearer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I tweaked it thusly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review I checked refs 3, 9, 19, 22 and 23. All were appropriate, accurately represented and without copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Prose is clear and understandable, research seems thorough, structure and organization are good. The article says everything I'd expect it to say and leaves no major questions unanswered. If I had to nitpick, I'd like to know why the bird likes to hang out in coconut farms - is there something about the trees/farming method that attracts them, or is it just a case of their range being dominated by coconut growers? That seems like something the source is unlikely to cover in any detail so it's not a huge issue for me. Nice work. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
given how little the bird has been studied, I suspect it is just noted that it was seen there sometimes. It's a tropical area so there'd be cocnut farms about the place..will see what I can find Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cwmhiraeth edit

This looks to be the sort of high quality article we expect from Casliber. Just a few minor points:

  • There is some duplication between the first and third paragraphs of the lead.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomy section is quite substantial and should perhaps be summarised better in the lead section.
I have added a bit but alot of it is a bit specialised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The birds exhibit sexual dimorphism, with males being slightly larger and much more brightly coloured than the females." - If you are going to mention "males" without an article, "females" should not have one either.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The adult male ..." - Perhaps you should mention here that you are talking about the nominate race.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference in colouring between the two subspecies seem inconclusive, they both seem to have red on the rump extending onto the lower back.
the differences are really minor. Ok - the nominate has a dark brown back, but red rump and head. It is the other subspecies that has red extending to the lower back (though still has dark brown upperparts) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be better to refer to the bird by just one of its names, red-headed myzomela or red-headed honeyeater, all the way through.
We generally call it the latter name...old habits die hard... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The red-headed myzomela in Australia ..." - Is this the nominate subspecies?
yes/rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... in the west Kimberley" - Is that correct usage, it sounds a bit odd to me?
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Australian population of M. e. infuscata" - Is this the intermediate population mentioned earlier as being on Cape York?
there is some of infuscata (on the Torres Strait Islands) and some intermediate populations (on Cape York). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the alterations made, and am now supporting this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: We have a lot of support here, but I'd just like to let this run for a few more days to see if there is any further comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Understandable/no probs from me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 9 March 2017 (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/Red-headed_myzomela/archive1&oldid=1136095807"