Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red-billed quelea/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 19:49, 23 August 2017 [1].

Red-billed quelea edit

Nominator(s): Dwergenpaartje (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most populous non-cultivated bird in the world. Newcomer Dwergenpaartje has done most of the heavy lifting in this one, but many folks of the bird wikiproject have had a look. It got a detailed going over at GAN and I think has buffed up quite nicely and is within striking distance of FA-hood. Have a go at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagaral edit

  • There are 8 images in the article, and all have proper description templates, and have no coyright issues. Also, they are well-relevant to the context.
  • There is some sandwiching of text in the description section, and it would be great if that could be removed. Also, the images do not have ALT text.

Looks great otherwise! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley edit

Some quick comments to start off with.

  • Why is there citations in the lead? I don't think that there needs to be any except after that quote in the next-to-last sentence.
You're right, though I don't think even that one is controversial enough to warrant a ref. removed refs in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ref for the quote should probably be included since it is a quote. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok re-added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be good to include the pronunciation in the lead.
didn't strike me as that odd a word to pronounce.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least for me, it is. I had something like /kwɛlɪə/ going. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah me too...I'd not thought about any other way... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is interbreeding with the red-headed quelea included in the phylogeny section? Maybe put it in the section on reproduction and add some more details about how it affects clutch size, success rate, etc.
I have always put hybridization in taxonomy as it touches on the relationship with other species or a population with distinct characteristics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I will do some more soon. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some more:

  • The last part of the sentence "The species is endemic to Sub-Saharan Africa and avoids forests, deserts and colder areas such as at high altitude and southern South Africa" doesn't seem to be right; maybe say "such as high altitudes and..." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the altitude isn't a place so needs some sort of preposition and article. Added "those". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be better to have what family it is in in the first sentence, instead of in the middle of the first paragraph. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of saying "globular roofed nests" in the sentence "It constructs globular roofed nests woven from strips of grass hanging from thorny branches, sugar cane or reeds", maybe say "roofed, spherical nests"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
not sure about this one..."globular" implies a less exact roundness than "spherical" and hence strikes me as more appropriate word. Can you expand on why you think this change is good (am I missing something...?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "globular" pretty much implies roofed, but some may be confused if we leave that out. Maybe say "spherical-like"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, need to think about this one... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers might be a bit confused when you mention out of the blue that "In 1850, Ludwig Reichenbachthought the species was not a true bunting, but rather a weaver, and created the genus name Quelea, as well as the new combination Q. quelea". Maybe, after the citation to Linnaeus, say that it he placed in the bunting family? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

A very worthy topic, and one that I am sad to say I know little about. Only have a few minutes right now, but I'll be back soon enough to finish up. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm personally not keen on referring to people by surname only at first mention; it strikes me as a little over-formal, and alienating to certain readers. YMMV. Also, why no link to Reichenbach in the lead? How about the countries mentioned?
Nope, was an oversight. Now rectified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "oval roofed nests" oval-roofed?
The nests are oval...and have a roof Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The usual pest control measures are spraying avicides or detonating fire-bombs in the enormous colonies during the night." Avicides is jargon- link? Also, wouldn't it be pest-control?
linked...was trying to think of an accurate plain English substitution but couldn't without getting really wordy.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "a chemical bird control substance"? Do'nt like it too much for it is really wordy. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When food runs out, the species migrates to locations where in recent weeks the rains have started and grass seed is plentiful and so exploits its food source very efficiently." Could this sentence perhaps be broken up?
Gave it a shot - tricky one to split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "without giving the literature reference however." I would recommend "without, however, giving the literature reference", but more importantly, I'm not sure it is clear what is meant here.
I think it means that he didn't explain the name or bird...but then again he almost never does anyway. I removed it as no real meaning is lost. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you mean Surrey and not "Surry"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 18th century source says "Surry" and not "Surrey", can we be sure they are the same? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
fixed I think so yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, next batch:

  • "The nominate" is this common? Would "The nominate subspecies" not be more standard?
slightly worried it is a tad repetitive but done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Q. quelea intermedia is regarded a synonym of the nominate" Could we perhaps have a smidge more about this name?
added. Reichnow named it but a few years afterwards realised it was aethiopica Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The type was collected in the neighbouring Sennar province in today's Sudan." Of the subspecies, you mean? Probably no need to change if so. If you mean the type specimen for the species, the placement is a little odd.
yes. I used a run-on "and" and "its" to tighten the link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DNA-analysis," Why the dash?
no idea. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lores", "coverts and flight feathers" Jargon
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mask is surrounded by a varying area of yellow, rusty, pink, purple or (in case of a white mask sometimes) black. This coloring may only reach on the lower throat or extend along the belly," Could this be smoothed out a little?
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the chin, throat whitish" Not very prosaic!
rewrote this bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The male sings in short bursts, starting with some chatter, followed by a warbling tweedle-toodle-tweedle.[21]" Do females not sing?
not sure - have tried to search for any details on this. The guidebooks say the flocks give a chittering, but is unclear if they know that both sexes make the calls. So I have nothing conclusive to add... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The birds however avoids forests, including miombo woodlands, and rain forest such as in central Africa. It is also" Singular/plural
Done
  • "where it attacks crops, although it is suggested it prefers seeds of wild annual grasses" I think "attack" is a little strong, and is the passive voice necessary?
attack changed. tweaked it a little but hard to get out of passive entirely Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Central Kenya" Is that a proper noun?
no. downcased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "South-Sudan" Is the dash necessary? The fact you're referring to South Sudan rather than the south of Sudan is shown by the capital S.
It's both actually. clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the South-East to southern" south east or south-east, surely?
yup. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When breeding, areas with thorny or spiny vegetation below 1,000 m (3,300 ft) elevation are selected, such as Acacia, and lowveld." I'm struggling with this.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Red-billed queleas feed mainly on a wide range of grass seeds such as from native annual grasses like species" Too many qualifiers
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lanner falcons, tawny eagle and marabou stork" Singular/plural?
Done
Done by Dwergenpaartje Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're given two lots of stats about birds caught "near N'Djamena"; I don't think we need both. Also, I feel the paragraph quickly loses track of the "three methods" structure that it sets out with.
I thought both facts were helpful and illustrative so I rejigged so they were flowed better. I am not sure how else to set out the three methods, but did add a comma and a "while" between methods two and three to try and delineate them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quelea guano is collected in Nigeria. Tourists like to watch the large flocks of queleas, such as during visits of the Kruger National Park. The birds themselves eat pest insects such as migratory locusts, and the moth species Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exempta.[6]" This feels a little out of place. Also, perhaps you could specify the uses of guano?
added, though little other info available. Have split this into second para Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear the "Aviculture" section is a bit how-to. A striking example: "Particularly during the breeding season living insects such as mealworms, spiders, or boiled shredded egg should be provided."
rejigged now..better? This is tricky to massage. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can put away 50 tonnes of grain" Informal
aww spoilsp- fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "pest" section is also a bit-how to. Perhaps better to simply stick to describing the methods used?
tweaked, how about now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really like the "illustrative images" section. You could consider using {{external media}} in the article body as an alternative.
We have a pic of nests in article, videos now in EL with template. Most photos don't add a huge deal so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did, they were fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Few additions, and a consideration in purple by me Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. In my view, this article has improved, and was already very strong. A have a few more comments:

  • "The upperparts have light and dark brown longitudinal stripes, particularly at midlength, and is paler on the rump" are paler?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When breeding, it selects areas with thorny or spiny vegetation below 1,000 m (3,300 ft) elevation, such as Acacia, and lowveld" I'm still struggling with this. To my mind, there's a category mistake in referring to a habitat and a genus as the same kind of thing. How about "When breeding, it selects areas with thorny or spiny vegetation below 1,000 m (3,300 ft) elevation. This can include lowveld or areas dense with Acacia." Or maybe I'm misunderstanding; what is Acacia?
you're right. rejigged thus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be an inconsistency in the way you link to other taxa. For example, you have "weaver birds (Ploceus)" but "teff (Eragrostis tef)". Sometimes you don't provide an English name at all. Maybe I'm being too picky here, but it did jump out at me.
I try to do both names where possible as it prevents a sea of bluelinks in a list of organisms. The sorghum seems to lack any common name though... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have also been observed" The they is (grammatically, anyway) ambiguous here.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each team of six trappers processed about" I really dislike processed, which is a pretty clear euphemism. "captured and killed" might work.
changed to "caught" - not sure if they killed them straightaway.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An estimated five to ten million queleas were trapped near N'Djamena each year," Are?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually still struggling with the "three methods". Net, tree-climbing and traps? Actually, thinking aloud, I realise you don't actually specify the method used to take birds "from roosts in the trees during the moonless period".

Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

they look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Usual nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • color, coloring, colored—the English-speaking counties in its range all use BE, but your spelling is inconsistent and regularly wanders into AE
I'm not a native speaker, but try to stick to BE, although I may not always be aware. I'll correct to colour, and any other irregularities that will catch my eye.
  • Over time, two other subspecies have been describe—"Formerly" is better
Done
  • However is overused
Avoided using it now in 3 out of 7.
  • kwelea domo-jekundu in Swahili—is this borrowed from English or vise versa?
This remains unclear. Please see this discussion.
  • link iris genets, civets
Done
  • When they reach for instance the Benoue River valley, where passed rains already caused the grass to set seed. —doesn't make sense
You're right. I've rephrased and hope it is better now.
  • 18 g of grain… 50 tonnes… 1500 tonnes… one hectare—need converting
Done Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • It is described as small in the lead, but I think the actual size and weight should be given there.
done
  • "The male sings in short bursts" Presumably the female does not sing, and if so worth saying so.
Yes, it is likely she doesn't, but I haven't found a source that says so.
  • "Nest building usually commences four to nine weeks after the onset of the rains and a quantity of about 300 mm (12 in) has been exceeded." I checked the source on this as 300 mm seems high, and I could only find a statement that the quelea needs 300 to 800 mm annually, not before nest building. You give one reference for 6 citations to a 73 page thesis. This is far too long to cite the whole document. You need to cite each separately with page numbers so readers can check your source.
You are doubly correct. The amount does seem rather high and the reference did not cover that aspect of the statement. The source actually says under the heading "Early Warning Systems": They utilized knowledge that 60 mm of rain within a two week period would stimulate grass-seed germination, and hence the initiation of the early rains migration, and that only if a further 240 mm falls within the following six weeks will conditions allow breeding.
I have added the page numbers for the thesis for each citation - e.g. rainfall and breeding are mentioned on 2 separate pages but one refers to the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still cannot see any source to justify the statement. The thesis says "Annual rainfall of 300-800mm for successful breeding". This is not 300 mm before nest building commences. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My colleague added it, not me, but my interpretation was reading the above fact with (on p. 12) "From 4-9 weeks after the rain fall, sometimes very large colonies are formed..." (note the "the", presuming a certain amount). If this is too tenuous an assumption. I'll change it I changed it anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predators and parasites section. There is five lines on predators of quelea ending with the scorpion Cheloctonus jonesii. The reference for these lines only suggests the scorpion as a possible predator, and does not cover other predators. The next sentence regarding parasites has two refs, one a general description which covers most of the paragraph and the other about a rare example of turtles preying on quelea.
I think I've disentangled it now.
  • The final paragraph is confusing. It starts by saying attempts at control took place at the turn of the last century, and later in the 1950s and 1960s.
I've rearranged it a bit to avoid breaking the time line. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is interesting and well written, but the referencing is unsatisfatory. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahoy @Dudley Miles:..changes done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

The site is run by the Department of Biological Sciences of the University of Cape Town. As far as I have checked, all information is consistent with other sources, but not everything can be found elsewhere freely accessible on the web.
replaced with a Reliable Source now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 2 "Quelea quelea" Handbook of the Birds of the World - any reason the Handbook part isn't in italics? And is it "Handbook of the Birds of the World" or "Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive" (as it's given in current ref 23)
The source is identical, no reason for avoiding italic, corrected
XC is a bird sound data base. It gets its material from crowed sourcing. Many birders contribute and also check on each others contributions. I think it is actually more reliable than many peer-reviewed science articles. In fact, by allowing media from wiki commons, we include illustrations much less reliable in almost every wikipedia article.
Generally user generated content is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it is a difficult issue. I was unable to answer a question on whether the female made calls with any other source. XC has many biologists contributing and vetting content. I will have a look on whether this has been discussed elsewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The website says its content is taken from a book titled The Bird Almanac, by David M. Bird. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ouch. So they are basically copying the information and/or doing a copyright violation? Better to get the information from the original source. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed that - apart from the almanac (a tertiary source), the consensus appears to be 1.5 billion with no mention of larger figures. Hence I have removed the sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations. I did not check the reliablity of the foreign language sources.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we are almost ready to promote here, but I'd just like to check if J Milburn has anything further to add, or if any of the reviewers have an opinion on Ealdgyth's unstruck sourcing queries? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to stand by my support! I don't think I have anything further to add. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed that support. I think I'm losing it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a (hopefully) less embarrassing note, did we find any other discussion of female calls? I tend to agree with Ealdgyth that the xeno-cato.org source does not look ideal as it is pure user-generated information. Biologists might vet and review, but so can other people, and there is no guarantee of quality there. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the answer is a frustrated "no". Many sources describe the calls and reading between the lines the assumption seems to be that both sexes make them...but no source says that. xeno-canto is the only on that does....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is worth holding up this review over, as it only concerns one sentence. Hopefully another source will turn up at some point. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Red-billed_quelea/archive1&oldid=1087756835"