Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cape sparrow/archive1

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) 21:17, 3 April 2017 [1].

Cape sparrow

Nominator(s): —innotata 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is a comprehensive resource on the species that meets all the featured article criteria. —innotata 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's support

A few now, more to come when I get back from work.

For a sparrow, the Cape sparrow is brightly coloured and distinctive, I would suggest it is striking rather than colourfull
In behaviour; Away from humans it is nomadic, and forms flocks of up to 200 birds. Away from settled areas perhaps?

I'll have a more comprehensive read through later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done —innotata

Do you want to include the weight range? 17-38g according to HBW.
Maybe calls instead of vocalisations?
Loxia or Fringilla, - might it be helpful for casual readers if we had common names, crossbills and finches, after the genus names?
- When the Cape sparrow was classified in Loxia, that genus name didn't exclusively refer to crossbills, so I think that would be more confusing. —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as a member of the genus Passer. and also to make it clear that by being in this genus it's in the old world sparrow family? It's family is mentioned in the lead but should be mentioned here too
- Edited —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and the Sudan golden sparrow have been reported how on Earth did they meet?
- Sudan golden sparrows are fairly popular pets. —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
including holes as well as open locations. seems redundant, just put a semicolon and jump to trees.
Cape sparrows are among the main hosts of brood parasitism by the dideric cuckoo,[15] and have been recorded parasitising others of the same species.[28] I think the cuckoo needs to be qualified that it's the main within the sparrow's range (it probably isn't the main host in Kenya) and the second part could make it clearer that it's referring to intraspecific parasitism.
Not an actionable comment, but why on Earth is it on a CAR stamp?
- Presumably it's one of those countries that puts random stuff on their stamps to sell to collectors. Done all the rest so far. —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this is all good. Fix the above (or explain why you won't) and we're done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good stuff. :) Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Since I GA reviewed this, I may return later if the FAC stalls, to give a new opinion. Until then, I can say the images look fine, all are user-made or from Flickr, with appropriate licences. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have one suggestion, the image under Relationships with humans seems rather bland, and it even seems to be slightly out of focus. Why not use a more interesting image, such as one of these?[2][3][4]
- Done, moved it up though. —innotata 21:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I thought this looked like FA quality when I GA reviewed it, so I have little more to add. But there was one issue where you said details were in a paper you couldn't access, perhaps it would be worth getting those papers now? To answer why it "has a low reproductive success in more built-up areas". FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure it didn't drown in other comments, did you see the point above, Innotata? FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main paper in question is from the proceedings of the 19th IOC in 1988; if I remember right, my school's library doesn't have the complete proceedings. Now, I'd say it's not absolutely needed, though, since Summers-Smith covers its findings well: it found later breeding times, smaller clutch sizes, and consequently lower overall reproductive success in more urban/built-up areas, and attributes this to "suboptimum habitat" insufficiently similar to its wild, grassland habitat. It doesn't seem that this or any other sources have gotten any deeper into the weeds about why this difference was seen. —innotata 00:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - still looks good, note that inaccessible sources can often be received through the WP:Resource request. FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley

I will start with some quick comments, like I usually do:

In the lead, the term "granivorous" should be explained.
- changed to eats seeds —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is a nomadic flock? Please explain the term, again in the lead.
Probably should add a comma after "breeding" in the sentence "A typical clutch contains three or four eggs, and both parents are involved in breeding from nest building to feeding young."
It might be good to add a comma after "plumage" in the sentence "A medium-sized sparrow at 14–16 centimetres (5.5–6.3 in), it has distinctive plumage including large pale head stripes."
- Done these three —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the last sentence, it would be good to add how it is categorized as least concern, instead of just "not threatened". Also, it would be good to split the sentence into two parts, one about its IUCN status, and one about how the population isn't decreasing significantly.
- Removed IUCN status from the lead —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you re-add the IUCN status? It is pretty standard (as in really standard) to have the IUCN status in the lead, at least for bird FAs. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care either way for LC species; added it. —innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:ACRO, IUCN should be expanded at its first occurrence.
- Done —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, good luck! RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Why is the taxonomy after the description? It is generally standard to have the taxonomy before the description. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Either works, since those sections define what the species is; I think it makes more sense to put the description first, since that's a more fundamental definition, and the taxonomy if informed by physical attributes. Bird and other animal articles are pretty mixed on which goes first, and all the other sparrow articles have description first. —innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Innotata: Sorry about this, but I will stop the review. If you want an explanation, I made the essay User:RileyBugz/On retirement. The gist of it is if I have too many commitments in an online community, the likelihood of me retiring increases. This, unfortunately, seems to be one to many FAC reviews. Sorry, again. Hopefully you are ok with this. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

I remember this, a smart bird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

male Cape sparrow has some bold black— repeat of species name seems unnecessary
cheerup, chip cheerup.[7][4]—refs in wrong order
transcribed—overworked in the calls paragraph
Miocene —time range would be helpful here
but these habits are not important sources of food—"habits" seems redundant
and the Sudan golden sparrow have been reported—clarify that these are escapes
- Done these —innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any known predators, parasites or diseases? There is at least this as a parasite, and you may be able to find something for a local raptor, although that's often tricky to RS, even when it's "obvious".
- I've done some pretty thorough searches for cites on predators, and didn't find anything specific enough. I'll add something from the source you linked. —innotata 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine,changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: I'm fine with your tweaks, you're on the right track. For instance, I changed "when X when Y" (not grammatical) to "when X and Y" ... I wasn't wild about the result, but I'm not trying to get my favorite wording, I'm only trying to make minimal changes to fix things that are problematic or don't have consensus. So, tweak away. - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured; thanks for looking through and noticing these problem phrasings! —innotata 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review I checked book ref 3 and web pages 9,18,27 and 28. In each case the the stated fact was an accurate reflection of the clearly RS source. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Jim, can you also comment on ref reliability and formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (subbing for Jim). All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited except as follows:

While most book titles seem to be in title case, not all are. Compare Clement with McCarthy, for example.

converted all the books to title case —innotata 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In ref 27, should "Thyme" be capitalized?
I note, several times in titles of articles, the capped words "Cape Sparrow". Is this proper? Shouldn't we go by the MOS and lower-case "sparrow"? I'm not sure if this should be done, because my experience with bird articles is limited.
Why is ref 28, a journal article, in title case when other journal articles are not?

Might it be simpler to convert all journal cites to title case? in all these cases, the citations retain the original formatting… —innotata 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an OCLC number available for Stark? And for the Smithsonian report?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added them —innotata 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just a few comments.

"while not breeding they gather in large nomadic flocks to move around in search of food. " I might say "when not breeding"
"most genetically close" genetically closest?

Done these two —innotata 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"though they may exclude it from nesting in holes." this is a bit unclear to me as a lay person.

Where these species coexist, they nest in cavities that the Cape sparrow might use in places without these similar competitors. Such language is used when one isn't sure by which means this exclusion takes place; I'm not quite sure how to clarify this. —innotata 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cape sparrows and a southern masked weaver feeding at a bird feeder in Johannesburg during the winter" maybe cut the word "feeding". I think it is implied and not worth the repetition.
" and fly out to nearby countryside" I would expect a "the" before "nearby".

Done these two —innotata 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed the numismatic bit! Very nice article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 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.