Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red-winged Fairy-wren

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 03:35, 30 December 2007.

Red-winged Fairy-wren

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria. It is comprehensive, I have used a monograph as well as bird handbooks and online information and used free pictures I took myself (part of the reason I took the li'l feller up to FAC). I feel it is at least equal in prose to the other three fairy-wren FAs, Superb Fairy-wren, Splendid Fairy-wren and Variegated Fairy-wren and utilised suggestions and criticisms in improving this article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have some structural problems with the way the behavioural section has been subdivided. There is a tiny diet section, yet the first unsubdivided behaviour section also has information on foraging. The first section also includes information that needs to be in the breeding section. The breeding section is currently divided into courtship and reproduction; this should be one subsection (breeding) with possibly two further subsections (Courtship and Nesting), or even three (Courtship, Cooperation and Nesting). Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a problem with ordering material that combines two different issues and am concerned that too much subdivision may make sections too stubby. ~~I'll alert once reordered.~~ cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reorganized material under behaviour, though kept courtship and reproduction as subheading of behaviour as in other bird FAs, and expanded a bit cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does not appear to meet FAC at this time. The lead is only seven sentences long, and certainly doesn't cover all of the material in the article: obvious things, such as the describer, size of the animal, behavior, and habitat go unmentioned in the lead. The Diet section is only three sentences long. It is a good article, but it is not robust, and comparing it to articles like American Goldfinch makes me think it's somewhat anemic. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC) I think all my initial concerns have been addressed. I'll make more observations tomorrow/later today when I've read the new material more thoroughly. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, lead is straightforward to fix. As far as content, it can be tricky how general to go with information, writing up really long articles got me to be ruthless with facts and trim mercilessly. I'll see what I can do and see how you feel after I have fleshed it out as much as I can. Some critters are much more fully studied than others and sometimes there is just more (or less) material to draw on. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have expanded from 17 to 25kb and added info on evolution, and lifespan, and elaborated on behaviour, chick development, reproduction and moulting. I am deliberating - I could add things like Hz frequency of bird call, though this may be a bit esoteric (I will add if others think this a good idea). Let me know what you think (and yes I know I should have added before nominating...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meets all FA criteria, as far as I can see. I really wish the footnotes hadn't all been moved to the ends of sentences ("footnotes follow punctuation", not "footnotes follow periods"), but since someone below recommended it, you can't be faulted. This article really should have gone though other peer review processes before FAC: the article has nearly doubled in size since it was submitted, indicating that it really wasn't ready. I feel it's ready now, though. It has the proper sections, it has good sourcing from reliable sources, and it conforms to the MOS. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made a few minor corrections to the prose, but otherwise the article is well written and informative. I know nothing about this bird, but I feel that the information provided was comprehensive for the most part. I would suggest, however, if information is available, expanding the claim that "there is some evidence of decline" of the species. It's a point that is brought up in the (newly expanded?) lead, but there is only one small mention of it in the "Distribution and habitat" section. The evidence, as it were, may be an important factor to explain more fully; I know I was left scratching my head and wondering. Other than that, it's a shame there aren't more images (one of the nest would be great, for example), but I completely understand how difficult it may be to illustrate an article such as this. Wonderful job! María (habla conmigo) 14:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, would love to find more images. I'll keep my eye out. thanks for the support guys! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support well referenced, well written, article about a real pretty bird.--Kiyarrllston 14:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ I just gave the article a quick copyedit and I just have a few quick concerns. First, is there a picture available that shows the typical habitat of the wren? I think that that would help improve the article, especially as there is room for it, though others may disagree. Also, you mention a decline, but does any reference go into more specifics, ie the reason for it? What animals regularly prey upon the adult wrens? Currently only nest predators are in the article. I realize that this is not exactly the most notable bird in the world from an economic standpoint, but does the species have any relationship with humans? Was it ever on a stamp or coin? And finally, does the MOS say that numbers from 1-10 should be written as the word, ie one to ten? Other than that, I think the article looks pretty good. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the habitat. Good idea and I'll sift through my photo album first. I was musing on a relationship to humans but there is little that applies specifically to this bird, if I do I can place the decline stuff. and see what else I can apply. I doubt it was symbolised on anything but will try to confirm this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers_as_figures_or_words - clarifies this. Could only change 3 to words as all others associated with either numbers over 10 or having decimal points. Have tried to look online, found no refs of this bird on stamps, emblems or symbols at all. The HANZAB book I'll try and chase up. Only specific predator of these birds mentioned is the cat, will have to look up other species, though there may not be much. In any case, bird survival is high so not many predators take them. Got a habitat photo though, and found some other cool habitat refs in the process. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update #2 - found a habitat reference for decline. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of my concerns were adressed, so changed to support. Per ref 32 below, I just went there and the document appeared for me. No cookie errors or cookies for that matter. Not sure what is wrong. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could you check citation #32? It seems malformed, and the link brings up a cookie error for me. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems to be an issue with cookies enabled (?)- mine worked at home but not where I am now. There was some discussion on another FAC about a better option was to just have doi and skip links as websites which have articles or abstracts often change (schizophrenia talk page I think off hand...). some pdfs are dodgy sometimes too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good, but a few issues:
- In the intro there is no overview of its place in the food chain as a prey species. Two paragraphs is sufficient in relation to the article's length and the guidelines of WP:LEAD, but it still needs to be an overview of the entire article.

Its a wittle tweety bird that has to hide from nasty critters but is pretty good in doing so. But seriously, I'll see what I can add.

Update - ok, in essence it is a small insectivorous bird (obviously) vulnerable to predators. Like many Australian passerines it has a low reproductivity and high long-term survival. No specific predators of adult birds are listed, though introduced cats are mentioned as a general problem. I can't place it exactly on a food chain as none of the sources do either, though I have mentioned it is vulnerable to predators. Sorry I can't do more. Other local sources will list the various hawks etc. which live in the area though I have not seen any refs linking a particular species to this one. If you can elaborate a bit more what you think the article needs I will see what I can do. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- To my knowledge, footnote citations always go outside punctuation at the end of the sentence, never within. If there are multiple cites, simply place them both there. Places where this occurs (such as in Taxonomy, Description, Diet, and Distribution and habitat) need to be fixed. Citations in the middle of the sentence looks messy and unprofessional. Done - I did often stick after commas/clauses if there were a ref for each but have changed that as requested.
- As it firmly asserts the scientific opinion of a particular person, the first sentence in Evolutionary history needs a direct citation. One citation for the entire paragraph is really the barest of minimums.

ok, have duplicated ref given it is one author and his coherent assertion

- Something is wrong with the formatting of ref number 32, the single bracket external link syntax making the title show up as a link isn't working.

It's weird. Works for one computer and not on another. As pointed out above, it was suggested that this is a good reason for leaving doi or pmid only and not links as issues arise. I have now included doi so I guess link could be removed. Question is, which is better, a link which works for half the people reading or doi only. I am easy either way.

Other than those, looks similar to your previously exemplary work. Good job. VanTucky ^talk 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.