Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Maryland/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:28, 23 May 2009 [1].

List of birds of Maryland edit

Nominator(s): Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I've been working on this list and believe that it meets all of the Featured List Criteria. It is comprehensive, easy to understand, illustrated with revelent and diverse pictures, and based upon the other bird FLs, especially the list for North Carolina, which I used as the base for this article when writing it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't very constructive and I'll try to think of what it is that makes me say this, but I don't like it. The one thing that jumps out is that within each order there is no apparent order to the specific birds---eg it is not alphabetical and I don't see another organizational method. I also think it would help to have tables... especailly with the bigger lists.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The birds are in Taxonomic sequence. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is required/expected, but I personally would like to see some of these lists in sortable tables. EG let the user sort based on Taxonomic sequence, alphabetical by common name, alphabetical by scientific name. I think that might be the problem that I'm having with the list is that as a person not familiar with "taxonomic sequences" the list doesn't look clean.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the value of the list alphabetical? In the ornithological world, all lists are done in taxonomic sequence. As most viewers looking up this page would have some familiarity with taxonomic sequence (be they birdwatcher or scientist), it would be the expected order. As it is in taxonomic sequence, the genera are already grouped together, so an individual looking up a specific species by scientific name should know the family, leading them to the correct subheading. Or, if they are like me and lazy, they could simply search the page with the ctrl f function. Likewise, an individual with a casual interest wondering if Blue Jays were found in Maryland could simply search for the term instead of setting the page in a new mode and then browsing down the alphabetical order (I'm guessing this is how EG would work- I'm not sure what it is and a brief search on Wikipedia didn't turn it up. What is EG?). Basically, I do not see what real advantage having the list in three different formats would be when I am unaware of a cataloging list anywhere that is in any format other than taxonomic.
In terms of it not looking neat and individuals not knowing what taxonomic sequence is, it is neat by the taxonomic standards and the lede to the list mentions that it is in this order, though not as outright clearly as it probably could. I'm about to rewrite the lede to rebuild the fourth wall, so I'll make it a bit clearer and maybe a bit earlier. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the more that I think about it the more *I* think it should be a sortable box format. Take a look at this. Here you can sort the table based upon the champion's name, how much money they won, what year they won it, total winnings, the number of bracelets, etc. By putting it into a sortable box, you would allow people to look up things based upon taxinomic sequence, alphabetical, scientific name, status (extinct, rare, etc.) Wikipedia articles should be accessible to more than just ornothologist, it should be accessible to as wide an audience as possible. That being said, you never know how people are going to want to look up the information. Taxonomic sequence may be good for you, but for 99% of the people who come to WP, they would not know how to use it. As for CTRL-F, yes that is an option, but not (IMO) for a FL. As for EG---Eg is a common acronymn for "That is"/"for example" and is used when giving an example.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, do I feel stupid. I assumed EG was the name of the program. Anyways, from a technical standpoint, how would the sortable boxes work with the family descriptions when the list is in taxonomic order? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of poker players has a different structure to the this list of birds. I do not think that this birds list will benefit from being in one large sortable table, because it is also listed in families. A separate list could have a "flat list" format which could be put in a table, which could be sortable, but I think that sort-ability is not applicable to this list here. There is nothing wrong with a flat-list in a table, but it is a different list to the one in question here. I think that the structure of the list divided into families as in the current list in question is fine. There may be a case for re-organisation of the birds within a family, perhaps alphabetical, or perhaps a sortable table for each family, sortable for common name and binomial name. However, I do not think that the list should fail FA because it does not have any tables. Snowman (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally would prefer a different format, but looking at the conventions used in other FL's of this type, I won't insist on it. Weak support---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This list of Maryland birds is a comprehensive listing of all the bird species recorded from the U.S. state of Maryland." Featured lists don't start like this anymore (i.e. "This list..."). See recently promoted FLs for an example of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at some recent FLs (and realizing that the title of the list need not appear in the list) I've rewritten the first two paragraphs to rebuild the fourth wall and hopefully make it more engaging. Does the rewrite work? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Is this:
    • a list of all birds from Maryland (ie, species' origins are Maryland, but can be found elsewhere)
    • a list of all birds native to Maryland (ie species' origins are Maryland, and can only be found in Maryland)
    • a list of all birds found in Maryland (ie, species' origins are from anywhere)
This is a list of all birds recorded in Maryland, or have sighted in the state and are believed to be of wild origin. I'll put that in the lede. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit unsettled by the generalisation of the title. It should be more specific.
  • Title isn't gramatically correct either. It should be List of ''x'' of/in/from ''y'', not [[List of y''s x]].
I'm not a big fan of the title layout either, but this is the standard for bird lists of states. However, for lists outside the country it is List of birds of Maryland in layout. Would moving it to this title fix this and the above bullet point? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. As I'm sure you know, WP:OSE isn't an excuse, and if this is renamed it could become the perfect catalyst for renaming all the other poorly named taxonomy lists. I'll leave it in your capable hands to come up with the correct name, but something concrete like "List of (all) birds found in Maryland", perhaps? Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point with the OSE was that if this list changes, then the rest of the lists should change as well. If you don't mind, I'm going to bring the renaming up at WP:Bird and see what format they think is the most accurate and, though I don't recall it, at somepoint there probably was a discussion with the simplistic, ungrammatical form being decided as the way to go. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is/will be here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the page to List of birds of Maryland as it seems to be getting the most support. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Dabomb says, don't start with "this is a list" or "this is a comprehensive list"; we know it's a list from the title, we know it's comprehensive from it's FL-star (should it get one). As a comparison, Dog doesn't begin, "this is a comprehensive article about dogs".
Rewritten. Could you look at the new opening to see how well it flows? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "U.S. state" = "United States state" -- odd, no? Please don't use abbreviations on their first use. Use the full term and but the abbr. in parentheses
Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This list is", "This list is" - page is self-referencial, which makes for uncomfortable reading
Rewritten. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AOU who?
Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy for an alternative phylogenetic arrangement based on DNA-DNA hybridization." We have links so you don't have to say "See so-and-so for such and such." That may be necessary in a paper encylopedia, but not here
Good point. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ACCESS, wikilinks should not appear in headings when there is unlinked text also. It messes up screen-readers for the blind. Perhaps write a short paragraph at the beginning of each section using the links instead, explaining what these birds are?
I've started going through it, the rest will come later. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{reflist}} should only be used for a minimum of 10-15 references, and a 2-col reflist for approx 25-30. is the way to go here
Check. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come the other 3 references are not used in-line?
One was bumped to inline, one was a repeat of the original inline, and one would have been used by the Maryland Records Committee but wasn't used by the article, so removed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's 1 EL being used as a reference. One or the other, please
What is wrong with having a specific subpage that is only the list being the reference and having the mother website, which includes a lot of information about Maryland birds and birding, being in the ELs? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just seems superfluous to me Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's quite a few redirects and 2 dablinks which need fixing.
I've started going through the redirects, the rest will come later. Is there a tool to find the dablinks? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The toolbox at the top of this FLC nomination has the link you need. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this one is fixed. I went through all the species names and undid the redirects that I thought were superfluous. However, Americans and Brits share several species of birds and delight in calling them different names. Wikipedia tends to side with the Brits in this, but to Americans, the people likely to be using this list, a diver would not be recognizeable as a loon, so the American name is present and redirected to Wikipedia's official article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, but it's enough to get started on. Regards Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Part I
This blog uses it and calls it USFWS PD, but the author could have easily been trusting Commons. Another picture from what looks to be the same photoshoot is here. However, I cannot find the same picture on the fws website. Should I upload and change the picture to the one on the second link? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how important it is. But you could always crop the file below to remove that name stamp. Then just upload the cropped version as a new version of the file. That would solve things. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only one that uses s/he! Yay! Anyways, about midway down the page in the file history comment it says "Photograph''': Mdf first upload in en wikipedia on 21:02, 27 May 2005 by Mdf * '''Licence''': {{GFDL}})" Also, MDF has the picture on their userpage. Should I still ask s/he, or is that enough? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot, I had overlooked that and the image being on MDF's page. It's good enough for me, I'll just go tidy the information. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Puffinus_griseus.png - original upload log is not recorded very well on Commons. It would be nice to look at the deletion log to determine who the original uploader on en.wiki was.
  • Okay, I'm satisfied C00ch is Thomas Mattern, However (per tip 8) it needs its original (now deleted) file history to be copied across. Any chance you can do that Matt, as I can't see it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Brown pelican - natures pics.jpg, uploader in good standing so AGF. However, couldn't find image at website linked. Description page mentions correspondance with website owner, OTRS might be helpful here.
I am almost certain that it is the picture here, only it has been flipped and the colors were changed. The photographers release everything here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think you're right, I'll add that info in a bit. Should be fine once that is done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:RT hawks.jpg. Uploaded to Commons, but the source notes that the image is copyright of Thomas O'Neil (the given author). User:Tgo2002 uploaded a number of images from that site, but hasn't explicitly stated that he is the author. As the website still considers it copyright I think this might be a possible copyvio.
Hmph. And TGo2002 hasn't edited since 2005. Would the next step be to email the site owner and ask him if he uploaded the pictures? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be a good move. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Peregrine falcon x.jpg - "for personal use", Wikipedia requires commercial use. Also, would "Pennsylvania Game Commission" really be considered as "United States Federal Government"?
I know nothing of copyright laws, so your call. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PipingPlover file was deleted because the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission wasn't federal government. I think Pennsylvania Game Commission would be the same and would suggest removing this image.

It may take me quite a long time to get through these, so if someone wishes to help/continue please feel free. In general, some images need to have the better information, less generic PD tags etc. I have found, and added info. for some images (e.g. this one). However, it takes time. So if you have time and can fix some of these things it would be a great help. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this. I'll do what I can, but images aren't my speciality (I've always trusted Commons too). Is there a tutorial or something out there so that I can learn how to do an image review? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to put down some of my own thoughts here, but another user has since pointed me to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches, which is a much more complete document about the use of images. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This is a long list, and I want to focus on the details. It may take me a few days to complete my review.
  • I think it's worth mentioning that Maryland is a U.S. state.
  • I don't see references for the birds listed, only the lead.
Reference number 1 is the list of the birds and is the reference for all of the birds being listed. Traditionally, to avoid clutter, bird FLs have just reffed it in the lead. However, if you think it would be better to have the ref repeat after every "X species have been recorded in Maryland" sentence, I'll put them in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can use a "general" reference. See List of Washington Wizards head coaches#References as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These are birds that are modified for an aquatic existence with webbed feet" When I hear "modified", I think of GMOs. Perhaps "adapted" would be a better word?
  • No need to link Northern Hemisphere.
  • "bills which are flattened"-->bills that are flattened
  • "In Maryland, 43 definitive species have been recorded and three of questionable origin have also been reported." Per MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written out the same. So, "43" and "3" or "forty-three" and "three".
  • "Black-bellied Whistling-Duck" redirects to "Black-bellied Whistling Duck". Is there a reason for this discrepancy?
Just general bird name confusions. Some people like hyphens, some don't. I've changed it to the WP article name. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In all of Maryland's species, males are polygamous" This lends to the question as to whether there are monogamous males in other parts of the world.
Yep, the Willow Grouse, but it isn't even found in North America, so I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in the paragraph. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Loons are aquatic birds size of a large duck" Missing words.
  • "are almost hopeless on land" Are you referring to walking?
  • "small to medium-large sized"-->small- to medium-large sized
  • "amongst "-->among
  • 'true petrels' Should be double quotes per MOS.
  • "The flight is fluttering"-->Their flight is fluttering
  • "Pelicans are very large water birds"
  • "with very long necks and long, straight beaks"
  • "medium to large sized wading birds"-->medium- to large-sized wading birds
  • "large sized wading birds"-->large-sized wading birds
Couldn't find this one unless it is the same as above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shorter necked"-->shorter-necked
  • "long necked birds"-->long-necked birds
  • "usually 3-5 feet in height," Needs an en dash, needs a conversion. Also, you make "feet" the primary unit here. Above, you made meters the primary unit. Be consistent.
  • "convergent evolution" Link?
  • "oddly-shaped" Per MOS, -ly adverbs don't need hyphens. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing. I will be away from my computer for much of the weekend, but please keep these coming. The family summaries are generic enough to be used for all state checklists, and if they are fixed now, they will be good for the next list. I believe I've adressed everything above that does not have a comment with it. Also, I'll be gone for much of the weekend, but will be back around noon Sunday EST. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in any location which is near a body of water"-->in any location that is near a body of water
  • "have very large powerful hooked beaks"
  • "small to medium-sized birds which includes"-->small- to medium-sized birds that includes
  • "and have long toes which are well adapted to soft, uneven "-->and have long toes that are well adapted to soft, uneven
  • "small to medium-sized birds"-->small- to medium-sized birds (check for the hanging hyphen throughout)
  • "They are found in open country worldwide, mostly in habitats near water, although there are some exceptions." You could trim redundancy by saying "They are ususally found in open country worldwide, mostly in habitats near water."
  • "In Maryland, seven definitive species have been recorded along with one species of questionable origin." I think a comma would be good in this register (after "recorded")
  • "obvious and noisy plover-like birds," Not sure what "obvious" means here.
  • "Recurvirostridae is a family of large wading birds, which includes the avocets and the stilts."-->Recurvirostridae is a family of large wading birds that includes the avocets and the stilts.
  • "The Scolopacidae are a large diverse family of small to medium sized shorebirds " Comma after here.
  • "medium to large birds"-->medium-to-large birds (multiple occurences)
  • Do we need to link "birds" as much as we are? Link "mandible" on its first appearance.
  • "medium to large sized"-->medium- to large-sized
  • "small to large"-->small-to-large
  • "feet which are of little use"-->feet that are of little use
  • "Kingfishers are medium sized birds"-->Kingfishers are medium-sized birds
  • "Most, but not all, are rather plain." Are you referring to their plumage? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "small to medium sized"-->small- to medium-sized (check for this throughout also)
  • "They are typically greenish in color and resemble the wood warblers except for their heavier bills." Comma after "warblers".
  • "Their food is insects and seeds."-->They feed [prey?] on insects and seeds.
  • "mixed diet including seeds and insects."-->mixed diet that includes seeds and insects.
  • "unlike other birds which can only go upwards. " Comma after "birds".
  • "Treecreepers are small woodland birds, brown above and white below. " You're going to have to be more specific than "above" and "below".
  • "The kinglets are a family of birds which are very small insectivorous birds in the genus Regulus." Delete "very", "which"-->that
  • "The thrushes are a group of passerine birds that occur mainly but not exclusively in the Old World." I think you mean "inhabit", not "occur".
  • "Many have attractive songs." What does "attractive" mean here? For mating?
  • "The species tend towards dull grays and browns in their appearance."-->The species' appearance tends towards dull grays and browns [in plumage]?
  • "slender, ground feeding insectivores"-->slender, ground-feeding insectivores
  • "not closely related to the Old World sparrows which are in the family Passeridae." Comma after "sparrows".
  • "They are typically associated with open woodland." And what is this "associat[ion]" extended to? Habitat?
  • "In general, sparrows tend to be small plump brownish" Are you talking about Old World sparrows or all sparrows? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have covered all of the errors, including the hyphens with size throughout. Thank you for doing an outstanding job copyediting this. These family paragraphs as they appeared when the article was nominated are present in half a dozen or so currently featured lists and will form the base for any feature US birding list. Once this review is done, I'll be copying the corrected paragraphs into these earlier lists and therefore bringing these FLs up to speed. One last question- As I am currently using the actual list as a general reference, should I delete it in the in-text citations? Thank you again. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Tony1
  • Sparrow, too many corrections to the prose have been required to have nominated this one. It's not fair to other nominations to have reviewing resources sucked in like this. Please fix before nomination next time.
  • Opening sentence: "States" "state". What is wrong with "In the US state of Maryland, 435 bird species have been recorded."? These "one-step" links—where an item is linked that is so broad as to be of questionable utility to the reader, and as well is linked in the more specific article adjacent—dilute the links at the very opening and make the sentence half blue. Tony (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are too many copyediting problems to have brought this up for FL. I copied the family paragraphs from the other US state bird FLs and assumed that they were fine as they had been approved several times before. I should have read through them and checked them myself before nominating this list. On the bright side, once this FLC is concluded, I'll copy the corrected paragraphs into the bird featured lists to fix the errors. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an impressive amount of work addressing the FL concerns, which themselves were pretty impressive in their scope and detail. One comment, though it doesn't stand in the way of FL for me: in the lead and as a notation after some species you use the term extirpated. While I like my articles to have lots of SAT words, extirpate is a particularly rare word. So, for the benefit of the readership:
1. If it's a technical term used by the birding community, I'd suggest mentioning somewhere exactly what it means.
2. If it isn't, I'd suggest either doing the above or using a more common word such as 'eradicated' or 'exterminated'. Geraldk (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider "extirpate" to be an overly complex word, but I would suggest providing a wiktionary link. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's complex. I'm saying it's not a very common word. And, especially if it is a technical term, Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions applies. Geraldk (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2009 (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_list_candidates/List_of_birds_of_Maryland/archive1&oldid=1138486045"