Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banded broadbill/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [1].

---

Banded broadbill

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Another species of Southeast Asian broadbill. Pretty well-known, and rather well illustrated for an article on a species from this part of the world. AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. I may do some light copy editing as I go. If I mess anything up, could you let me know here.

• "Mainland Southeast Asia". Why the upper case M? Also in the main article.
  • No reason, just used it because it was in the main article.

Could we make them both lower case then.

• "On Java, the broadbill might breed year-round." "might" doesn't seem helpful here. Do you mean something like 'sometimes' or 'has been observed to'?
  • Replaced "might" with "is thought to".
• "are sister to the Grauer's broadbill". Why the definite article? Which is not used in the preceding sentence.
  • Removed definite article.
• "has more metallic grey underparts and pinker throats and upperparts." Just checking: the underparts are both "more metallic grey" and "pinker"?
  • Second reference is to upperparts.

D'oh! Sorry.

• "with an indistinct neckband, blacker foreheads, and pinker throats". Either all singular or all plural.
  • Changed all to singular.
• "with pale dark streaks". I am unsure how something can be both pale and dark.
  • Dark compared to the background, but pale overall. For example, look at the photo of the West Javan juvenile. The streaks on the breast are rather pale overall, but dark compared to the yellowish background.

Hmm. Ok.

• Perhaps link still-hunting to Hunting strategy#Still hunting?
  • Added link, but the hunting strategy article is about human hunters, so unsure how helpful it would be.

That's why I put "perhaps". Personally I think it's of some utility. But if you disagree, take it out.

• "as well as catching prey in flight in more elegantly." Is there a word missing?
  • Rephrased.

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Just the M/mainland issue, but no reason for that to stand in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect all subspecies names and synonyms here, if they aren't already.
  • Done.
• This individual[2] seems much lighter than the ones shown in the article. If it's a juvenile, perhaps clearer than the current juveniles shown in the article?
  • Definitely not a juvenile. I suspect that it's due to the lighting, since the background indicates the bird is captive. It might be an immature or perhaps a different subspecies, but I can't be sure since the photo doesn't provide any location info.
• "All the subspecies excluding javanicus are sometimes split as a separate species on the basis of morphology, which would make the current species monotypic (having only one subspecies)." but does anyone still follow that scheme? If it is an old proposition, could be said in past tense.
  • IUCN/Birdlife still split it into two.

You could add "according to this scheme" to this sentence then: "The nominate subspecies is called the Javan broadbill,[1] while the three subspecies in E. harterti (harterti, brookei, and pallidus) are called the banded broadbill.[13]" FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. AryKun (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• "The species is called takau rimba in Malay and Nok Phaya Paak Kwaang laay leuang in Thai." Considering the nominate is from Indonesia, and some of the other subspecies occur there too, wouldn't it make sense to have the Indonesian name there?
  • Haven't found any sources with the Indonesian name. The source for the Thai and Malay names is only a guide for the Malay Peninsula and thus restricts itself to those.
• "This larger clade is sister to one formed by the long-tailed broadbill and dusky broadbill. Both of these clades are sister to Grauer's broadbill." Is this level of text description detail needed when it is shown in the cladogram?
  • Can't hurt, and might be helpful for those with screen readers or those who don't know how to "read" a cladogram.
• What do the subspecies names mean?
  • Generally, this information isn't given in the article, as it's a bit excessively detailed.

Hmmm, is it really? I think this is of much more interest than describing sister taxa relationships in-text of every clade in the cladogram, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want, I could add the meaning in a footnote after each ssp name. AryKun (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Certainly couldn't hurt, it could even be in the main text. Since this is the article that covers those subspecies too, this is where people will have to look for the meaning of their names and any other info about them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• "It is the type species of the genus Eurylaimus, which was created for it." Both parts of the sentence means the same, but I can see the latter part could be needed as an explanation.
  • Yep, the second part is meant as an explanation for those unfamiliar with taxonomy.
• "The weight of 10 specimens of adults of pallidus" unnecessarily wordy, what about "The weight of 10 adult pallidus specimens"
  • Done.
• "that allows it to mash and "chew" its food, helping the species consume relatively large prey." Isn't this more suited for the diet section?
  • Well, I guess it might fit in there, but the first part of the sentence is actually describing its bill's appearance and size; the latter part is just there to provide an explanation for why the bill is so large.
• Explain anatomical terms like supercilium in parenthesis.
  • Added glosses for supercilium and lores, but haven't added them for all the feathers, since those require a rather lengthy explanation of their function and position that would obscure the focus of the paragraph.
• You state the location of some pictured specimens, but not others, could be consistent.
  • Added location for the picture lacking it, don't think the infobox image needs location as the subspecies is already mentioned.
• In one place you say "coloration", though the rest seems to be UK "colour".
  • Fixed.
• "which splits the banded broadbill into two species" Which two species?
  • Mentioned earlier in the taxonomy section, assuming readers are at least skimming it as they go through.
• And on that issue, what authority are we following here in only having one species? I believe we generally follow IOC, what do they say? In case the article will have to be split.
  • IOC keeps it as one species, so that's how I've treated it.
• Terms like ovoid and lateral could be explained or replaced with common terms.
  • Done.
• "is a striking species" Seems rather informal and hyperbolic for the very first sentence.
  • Striking means distinctive or conspicuous, which it is; also, since the BOW account calls it "remarkable-looking" and "comical-looking", I thought that at least a cursory mention of its distinctive appearance was needed at the start.

Shouldn't this be at the start of the description part of the intro then? Now you instantly characterise it as "striking", which I don't think is common for the first introductory sentence in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Moved the mention in the lead to the description part, instead of the first sentence. AryKun (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• "is sometimes split into two species, one including only the nominate subspecies, E. j. javanicus, and one including all the remaining subspecies." The article body should go into this in more detail under taxonomy. What is the name of the other supposed species, and what is its nominate subspecies?
  • Adde extra detail in taxonomy.
• On what basis are the other subspecies grouped together to the exclusion of the nominate?
  • Added.
• Link arthropod in intro.
  • Done.
• Not a big deal, but instead of having the very long double image of immatures, perhaps use one of them under reproduction where immatures are mentioned, and perhaps give the month the photo was taken (can be seen in the exif data of the photos) in the image caption, since this seems important in the text?
  • Added months, but I think the images are best placed where they are.
• "the other subspecies as being of least concern" Shouldn't this be the other species? I don't think they cover subspecies.
  • The other subspecies as in all three of them, changed to "and all the other" to make it clearer. I think saying subspecies maintains internal consistency, since the rest of the article treats it as one species, not two.
• Should be possible to identify which subspecies are pictured from their locations?
  • I guess, since the subspecies live on different islands.
  • FunkMonk, I've addressed or replied to all the things you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Some replies above. FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• FunkMonk, I've added the etymologies of all the ssp names in footnotes, which seems to be the last of the issues you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - looking nice. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Aa77zz

Description

• "The weight of adults of pallidus from the Malay Peninsula was ..." I suggest the present tense "is" – unless you specify a particular study.
  • Reworded.
• "with a black band across the neck." and "a pure grey breast-band". This is confusing. Is this the same band? Does the male of the nominate subspecies have a band on the upper breast? Perhaps also mention the breastband/neckband when listing ssp in Taxonomy and systematics
  • The neck-band is black and across the neck; the breast-band is gray and lower down across the breast. This can be seen in the infobox image, where there is a black band across the neck and another grayish streak below the neck-band. The entire description para refers to the nominate ssp as mentioned at the beginning ("Adult males of the nominate subspecies"), while the neckband is mentioned in the ssp descriptions where it differs (eg in brookei - "with an indistinct neckband").
    • Thanks for clarifying this. Perhaps "and a pure grey breast-band." -> "and a pure grey breast-band beneath the black neckband." - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Consider mentioning the white spots visible on the underside of the retrices.
  • Already mentioned ("The tail..and has white spots on the underside").
• The sentence beginning "It is among the widest-billed broadbills, ..." seems out of place. Consider moving the sentence to before "The irises are pale yellow...".
  • Done.

Distribution

• link Indochina
  • That redirects to Mainland Southeast Asia, which is linked earlier.
    • Yes, I noticed that, but it wasn't obvious to me that "Indochina" is a synonym for "Mainland Southeast Asia". - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Breeding

• Perhaps mention that both sexes collect nest material (Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 p. 16)
  • Added.

References

• The references are cluttered with links from overzealous archiving. For many Wikipedia articles link rot is a serious problem, but fortunately this is not the case for most of the references in this article. There is no need to archive links to scans available from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) or those from the Internet Archive (IA). (Note that the BHL and the archived copies are on the same IA web server.) I'm unable to display the archived copies of the BHL book scans.
  • Removed archive links to BHL content.
• The archived copy for Kirwan et al 2021 (Cornell BOW) is useless – the article is behind a paywall so the archive contains no useful information.
  • Removed link.
• Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 – the page numbers should be 8–27.
  • But 11–15 are the ones supporting cited info. The field pages in the ref template says "Pages in the source that support the content (not an indication of the number of pages in the source".
    • For journal articles and edited book chapters I use page ranges such as: 8–27 [11–15] – but I admit that this not standard. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Dekker et 2000 Notes 3 – For journal articles it is usual to specify the page numbers of the article rather than the actual page. (as with your Notes 2 reference) The pages are 77-88.
  • See above

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• I still find the description of the neckband unsatisfactory. When describing the female you write: "although the neckband is faint or absent in males as well on Borneo and Java." Presumably the race on Java is E. j. javanicus, the nominate subspecies, which you've described earlier as "with a black band across the neck." Perhaps you should make it clear earlier that not all males of the nominate subspecies have a black band across the neck. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've tweaked the description and moved the sentence mentioning the lack of a neckband in Bornean and Javan males into the para describing males, which I think should make this clearer. AryKun (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Support - the changes look good. Great work. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• File:EurylaimusJavanicusDist.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
• File:Banded_Broadbill_-_Adult_feeding_juvenile.jpg is of rather poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Replaced map with new one citing its sources. The adult feeding juvenile may be a low-quality image, but it illustrates a feature of its behaviour well, and in any case, there aren't any other images that could be used for the Behaviour and ecology section. AryKun (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: - Are you comfortable with signing off on the image review, or do you believe more still needs to be done? Hog Farm _Talk 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the quality of the juvenile image but will not oppose over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Source review

• For the web and journal cites, you give the publisher only where the publisher is the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Is there a reason for the inconsistency?
  • No reason, just what the default citation generator produced. Should I remove them?

    The only requirement is consistency. Removing them is probably the easiest option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

    Done. AryKun (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest adding the "subscription required" icon for those Cornell Lab references that are not free access.
  • Done.

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Pass. I removed one more that I think you missed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.