Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Black-and-red broadbill/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Black-and-red broadbill edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to take to article to FAC, and FunkMonk recommended that I put it here.

Thanks, AryKun (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I'll have a look soonish. In the meantime, there seems to be some issue about how to deal with one subspecies/species? Any developments on this? FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subspecies affinis is listed a separate species by Birdlife and the IUCN, but is still a subspecies according to the IOC. In the subspecies section, it is given that affinis is considered distinct by some authorities, which I think is enough. AryKun (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, since FAC doesn't accept articles with maintenance tags, it should be somehow resolved. I'd recommend bringing this up at the bird project's talk page so a solution can be suggested. FunkMonk (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tag's been removed by another editor. AryKun (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, should be fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually, info about naming comes before phylogeny. Also makes more chronological sense.
Done. AryKun (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • black-and-yellow broadbill is duplinked.
One of the links is part of the cladogram, so I think that having two links is fine here. AryKun (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd think this cropped version[1] of the the taxobox image would be more appropriate to use.
Done. AryKun (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info on the individual subspecies could get citations. I assume it is like this now because the citations are given in the paragraph above, but this isn't obvious to the reader.
Added refs. AryKun (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image reviewers would ask you what source the range map was based on. You could add for example the IUCN page on the maps description page, if it shows the same range.
I've added an IUCN ref to the range map's Commons page. AryKun (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is image text sandwiching under breeding, could perhaps be fixed by more staggering or with a multiple image template.
I've staggered the images out a bit. AryKun (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is itself from μακρος (makros), meaning long, and ῥυγχος (rhunkos), meaning bill." Not sure this level of detail is needed here.
Fixed.
  • "form a clade sister to" Sister clade. And link the term.
Done.
  • "Both of these clade" Clades.
Done.
  • "The following cladogram shows phylogenetic relationships among the Eurylaimidae" According to who and when?
Done.
  • Likewise, mention who and when made the study suggesting its relations in the etxt before the cladogram.
Done.
  • You state in some image captions where the photos were taken, could be done to all. Especially if it has relevance to which subspecies are shown.
Done.
  • You introduce Gmelin with nationality and occupation, but not John Latham.
Done.
  • "The black-and-red broadbill is the only species in the monotypic genus Cymbirhynchus, in the family Eurylamidae.[2] German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin originally described the species as Todus macrorhynchos in 1788" This is out of chronological order. You should start with the first names, then end up with the current name. And you need to explain who, when and why it was moved to its own genus, and what the genus name means, since this is the only species in it, therefore the genus is also the subject of the article.
I actually haven't found any sources that mention who first moved the species into Cymbirhynchus, but I'll see if I can find something.
Done. AryKun (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "meaning small boat or perhaps an unknown bird" This sounds odd. How does the source phrase it?
Replaced with a cf.
  • "In 1790, the species was named Todus nasutus by Latham" Why, if it already had a name? And if this is a synonym, it should be listed in the taxobox, along with any other synonyms.
Done. I've removed Tanygnatus megalorhynchus, since it's the scientific name for the great-billed parrot (have no idea how I missed that until now).
  • Synonyms should also have the authorities written in the taxobox.
Done.
  • It might be good to use the upright parameter on the vertically long images so they don't take so much space.
Added it to the roosting image, but don't think that any other images need it.
They are all vertically long and take much space (the roosting one actually takes least, being less vertical), but it's not a huge deal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks a bit jarring in the subspecies list that only the Irrawaddy broadbill section begins with a bolded common name. I think you can just mention in the paragraph that it is referred to by that common name, and begin the section with the scientific name like the rest on the list.
Done. AryKun (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a huge deal, but images should preferably be placed within the sections they illustrate, not above them.
I fixed it by adding a gallery for the breeding and nesting images. AryKun (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the staggering under breeding looked pretty good as it was, I was thinking more of for example the image under description, it is above the header, but should be below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So should I restore the original staggering of the images under breeding? AryKun (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you, it would create less white space, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll return with more comments soonish. I think it might be good to keep it open in case more reviewers drop by. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could link some technical bird terms under description to the bird glossary.
Done.
  • "It is occasionally treated as a distinct species." On what grounds?
Fixed.
  • The appropriateness of using avibase as a source was questioned at my current bird FAC, could the info sourced to it be replaced with more scientific sources?
I'm using AviBase to provide reference for the alt names, because I couldn't find that in any of the other sources.
  • "The species is mainly found singly, in pairs, or in family parties. The species has" Would sound less repetitive if you for example used the full name of the bird instead of "the species" the first time.
Done
  • The shape of the bill itself seems pretty unusual, but there is no description of it apart form colouration.
None of the sources really discuss the bill much beside coloration.
  • Colour of the legs?
Done.
  • What is the reason for the bill's shape? And its colour? Used for mating or feeding?
I couldn't find any sources on the bill's color or its uses, but there is a source that states that the larges bills of broadbills in general may just be an adaptation to an insectivorous diet.
  • Anything on mating behaviour?
There isn't any info about mating behavior, but I did add some about parental care after hatching.
  • Any sexual dimorphism? If not, this should be stated specifically if it can be sourced.
Done. AryKun (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After these things are fixed, I should be able to support it directly at FAC. Again, you may want to keep the PR open a bit longer even after my review is done to get more reviews, but it's up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all the issues you brought up, but I'll keep the PR open for a couple more days before going for a FAC. AryKun (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I still think you could try to seek out some info on the bill morphology as it seems like an oversight now. Even if it's a source that covers the group as a whole, it will apply to this taxon too. I would also recommend looking through Google scholar results for this taxon[2], looks like there is a good deal of info about their parasites too. And articles you can't access can be requested through WP:RX. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added info about the parasites, along with some about the function of its beak and tongue. Should this be added? AryKun (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, comprehensiveness is also a FAC criterion, so why not. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for this review, it helped improve the article a lot. I'll take this to FAC now since there aren't any other responses to the PR. AryKun (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Black-and-red_broadbill/archive1&oldid=1046796696"