Talk:Eurasian sparrowhawk/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MeegsC | Talk 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've signed up to review this article, which may take a few days. MeegsC | Talk 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a start, with more to come soon!

Lead

• According to WP:MOS, there should be no space between numbers and a percent sign. There are several other percentages that should also be corrected in the article.

 Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• Wikilink genus and Accipiter''.

 Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• When was the species moved from Falco to Accipiter, and by whom?

 Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here and elsewhere, the bird is sometimes referred to simply as "Sparrowhawk" rather than "Eurasian Sparrowhawk". These should be changed.

 Done Bogbumper (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• What distinguishes the subspecies? Is it mostly range, or are there plumage differences as well? (The article mentions a few physical differences for some of the subspecies.)

Given they are subspecies and not species, I'd imagine the differences are subtle, like those mentioned in the text - nisosimilis stands out as the only one lacking any info. Will have a look. found some info on nisosimilos being very similar to nisus (which one would figure from the name...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Description

• Watch for overlinking. Bird of prey, for example, is linked three times (twice in the first paragraph of this section, once in the lead) — four if you count the redirected raptor from the lead.
• Is the throat streaked with dark at all ages, or only in juveniles? It's hard to tell from the sentence's location within the paragraph.

 Done run sentences together to make it clearer that it's the juv Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Explain "mesial stripe", which is not something most readers are likely to be familiar with.

 Done added midline Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Make sure all measurements have both metric and imperial values. The sentence starting "In Great Britain" has several unconverted numbers.

 Done converted two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Identification

• Not sure about this header, since the section doesn't directly deal with identification; perhaps it should be "Confusion species", with the flight info moved up to the Description section? If the article is going to compare the Eurasian Sparrowhawk to other (similar) species, then it should explain how to differentiate them; size won't be the only difference.

I've removed this heading and reorganised "Description" in what to me seems a more logical sequence. Bogbumper, please revert or change this if you are not happy with my precipitous action Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy to go with that. Bogbumper (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lifespan and demography

• "The oldest recorded ringed Eurasian Sparrowhawk..." Are there older non-ringed ones? If not, consider deleting "ringed", or explaining why you've included that the bird was ringed. And according to the source of the BTO information (EURING), the bird was found dead, not trapped.

 Done Hopefully it's clearer now. Bogbumper (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• According to the BTO page listed as the reference, the average lifespan is four years, not three. The survival percentages are also different on the BTO site: the adult survival is 69% (rather than 65.7) and the juvenile survival is 34% (rather than 39).

 Done Bogbumper (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• The site also says that (where possible, and I'm assuming it's possible with a widespread species like this) its numbers are estimates for UK populations. Is there a reference (perhaps HBW, for example), that has more general information — this species ranges across Europe into Asia; are the numbers the same there?
• Does the cited reference explain why the mortality rate is higher for young males than young females? Readers are likely to be curious after reading that sentence; I certainly was!

 Done I haven't got access to the full paper, but found useful information in the monograph. It's very interesting! Bogbumper (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I don't finish this right away, but I have a busy few days coming up; fear not, I'll be back!  :) MeegsC | Talk 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

Just going to jump in and make a suggestion. A good job has been done of citing the "in culture" section, but it would be better if it was de-listed and instead the facts linked with prose. Common themes can be linked, for example you could say "The Eurasian Sparrowhawk is used in literature, for example...". Have a look at Common Raven#Cultural depictions or Bird#Religion, folklore and culture for ideas on how to do this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this. I had intended to do this myself to help out but have been snowed under. If I get a chance I might have a crack at this today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the status on this GA review? Seems like it tapered out in the past month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 07:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Crap, the in culture section is still not done. Give me 48 hrs and I think that is the last big outstanding thing. This is the nominator's first GA nom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting for the final bits to be finished. Didn't want to push, as I know what it is to be snowed under!  :) MeegsC | Talk 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

MeegsC, see what you think now. I was hoping to find some all-encompassing cultural stuff but was unable - at least it is in coherent paras now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The results of the Scottish relocation trial have finally emerged so I'll add a quick summary of that tomorrow. Bogbumper (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done that, by the way. Bogbumper (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What do we need to do next to get this review completed? Excuse my ignorance, I haven't done this before. Thanks! Bogbumper (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Round 2

Okay, back for more! There are only a few remaining things to fix before I give this a GA.

• The lead needs work. It should be a summary of the article, and right now several sections are missing. There's nothing in the lead about its range, or its cultural significance (including its long-established use in falconry) and nothing about its conservation status outside Europe. There's nothing about its nest or eggs.

 Done I've had another go. Not sure if it's too long - please let me know... Bogbumper (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• The photo captions could also use some work. Statements like "Male on kill" really don't tell the reader much (except, perhaps, the sex of the bird) he/she can't already see. How about something like "Eurasian Sparrowhawks, like this male, generally pluck the largest feathers from their prey before swallowing the meat." May pull them into reading the article, and certainly gives them more information, and a reason to look more closely at the photo.

 Done Captions extended. Bogbumper (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• The Eurasian (or Northern) Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) is a small bird of prey in the family Accipitridae which includes many other diurnal raptors such as eagles, buzzards, harriers, and other sparrowhawks. Everything after "Accipitridae is probably extraneous; if you're going to leave it in, there should at least be a comma after "Accipitridae".
• ...females and juveniles are brown above with brown bars below. You might replace "bars" with "barring" for clarity.
• The male is up to 25% smaller... sounds awkward, I think because up to generally implies something bigger or higher; how about The female is up to [or "as much as"] 25% larger...
• The paragraph re: breeding needs a bit more; what type of nest, how many eggs, etc. (just a summary though).
• Needs a brief comment re: range; only mentions being common in Europe, but it's found widely elsewhere.

 Done All addressed. Bogbumper (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• The pages in the Brisson reference cited don't tie in with Accipiters. Page 28 talks about Eurasian Coot, while page 210 talks about terns.

I don't have access to this. Can anyone else help? Bogbumper (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• A. n. melaschistos winters in "the plains"... What plains? Would it be correct to say It breeds in mountains from Afghanistan through the Himalayas and southern Tibet to western China, descending to neighbouring plains for the winter.?

Description

• Females can be up to 25% larger than males – the largest difference between the sexes in any bird species,[1][2] although Ferguson-Lees and Christie report that "nine other mainly bird-eating Accipiters have the difference even more marked." Okay, that sentence just sounds nuts; it's either the largest, or it's not! How about saying something like "among the largest differences" or "one of the largest differences". It's quite possible that your first two sources—which deal only with UK and European populations—don't include species from elsewhere in the world that might be bigger (i.e. it's the biggest difference in Europe).

I suppose I was trying to acknowledge what seem to be conflicting sources, but didn't make a very good job of it! I'll hit the library again and see what I can find. Bogbumper (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Removed mention of [possibly] the biggest size difference between the sexes; without being able to clarify what the size refers (eg. weight, wing length) it's confusing. Bogbumper (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I notice that all your measurement are referenced to a European field guide; you might check a raptor book that has worldwide information, just be sure the other subspecies don't have larger (or smaller) dimensions!

Back to the library for me... Bogbumper (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've changed it to HBW for now. Unfortunately I probably won't have time to get to the library much in the next few weeks. Bogbumper (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Toward FA

If you're planning to take this article on to FAC, you might consider the following:

Description

• You should expand this section a bit; what colour are the wings, the tail, the legs, the beak? Is the tail barred? Are the wings barred when seen from below?
• Does the adult have a "mesial stripe"? The article says youngsters lack one, but doesn't indicate anything about why this is relevant.
• There's one sentence briefly describing its flight pattern, then a major shift into similar species. Are these other species that fly like the sparrowhawk? Or should the paragraph be split? Does this species soar? Migrate in flocks? Regarding the other species named, other than Northern Gos, the article doesn't elaborate on anything other than size. If its going to tell how to distinguish similar species, it needs to do so; otherwise, I'd remove most of this paragraph.
• ...a protuberance on the underside of the toe means that the digit can be closed without leaving a gap. What is the significance of this (why is it important)?

So far the review is going nicely, but could it be sped up a bit on both sides? It's been in the GAN queue nearly four months (one of the oldest), and a decision from the reviewer ideally should be made in the near future. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Passed

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

The article is well-written and it complies with MOS.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Well-referenced to reliable sources.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I thought it was a good overview, compares well with coverage of other bird articles (both GA and FA).

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have appropriate free use licenses.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: