Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tree swallow/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) 10:14, 12 August 2018 [1].
Tree swallow edit
This article is about an American swallow in the genus Tachycineta. There has been a lot of research done on it (at least compared to most of the other birds I have worked on), with some even considering it a model organism. It's as comprehensive as I can get it, so I believe it is ready to be a featured article. Thanks! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Tree_Swallow-rangemap.gif: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just that the source link for the image is dead, so a good data source should be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Ok, I changed the source to HBW. Thanks! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 17:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just that the source link for the image is dead, so a good data source should be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
From FunkMonk edit
- I'll review soon. As usual, I have some media suggestions first. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- That picture of a box nest isn't very interesting. How about one of these[2][3], of natural nests in trees, or this one[4] of a chick being fed in a box nest?
- We have some audio files, if one of them is good, might be useful:[6]
- This photo shows the egg well, could be cropped and used:[7]
- This image show fighting, might be interesting:[8]
- Perhaps this image shows a mating pair better than the one used:[9]
- The intro seems a bit oog comparedf to the length of the article.
- I tried to trim it down a bit; I'm going to keep the section on breeding and stuff the same because of the fact that the stuff about that is a major area of research about this bird.
- "This swallow is sometimes placed in the genus Iridoprocne" Accoridng to who and why?
- "of its short coalescence time" Which is what?
- "is only inherited from one source" Too vague, you could specify it is from the maternal line.
- Specified.
- "A study based on such nuclear DNA" Again also vague, explain why this is better?
- It seems odd that you jump from naming to systematics, and then back to the meaning of the names you mentioned first. This could be organised better if you group the related info.
- Give authorities to the synonyms in the taxobox.
- "This swallow" It seems odd that you only link the term down in description, instead of the former section. Also, it is best to refer to the subject wit its full name at the start of a section.
- "and the tarsi are pale brown" So what colour are the rest of the legs? Or does this perhaps apply to the whole limb? If so, could be specified.
- You say the wings are blackish, but it seems the wing coverts are also blue?
- "aspects of this organism's biology" Seems very unspecific and detached, why not just use its name or say "bird's"? Also, what is a model organism?
- "Although it is aggressive during the breeding season, the tree swallow is sociable outside of the breeding season" Unnecessary repetition.
- "about 28% of breeders disperse after" If this is only a percentage of a percentage, you shoudl say something like "of those breeders that disperse, 28% do so because they fail to etc."
- Why is this in British English, if it primarily lived in the US? I see grey and metres. Or is it supposed to be Canadian English?
- "and wing length of the female." Sounds odd, what's the correlation?
- "increased heterozygosity" Explain.
- I feel like this is sort of explained by the next phrase, and I feel like this is common enough in genetics that it doesn't require an explanation; heck, I learned it in middle school. Also, explaining it with something like "(more different alleles)" would clash with the the next phrase. Furthermore, I linked it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- "The sex ratio of the hatchlings is male biased in females of better condition" This is a bit confusing, you could make it clearer that the females mentioned here are their mothers.
- "in females of better condition, and these males produced by the females in better condition are themselves in better condition." You say "better condition" three times in a sentence, I think it could be simplified.
- "The growth of nestling tree swallows is influenced their environment." Missing "by".
- Predators other than snakes that eat chicks?
- "but the authors of the study that found the correlations find this unlikely" Seems redundant.
- "Instead, they advocated that it indicated that" Also seems unnecessarily long.
- "quality female is able to lay earlier due to that quality." Also doesn't sound very look so good. A lot of repetition in that entire paragraph of immunology.
- "the reintroduction of beavers" How is this correlated?
- "taken in the all four of the Northern Hemisphere" Unnecessary.
- "In nests near lakes acidified by humans, calcium supplements... are more important in the diet of nestlings." What is the correlation?
- "according to nuclear DNA studies... according to mitochondrial DNA studies" I don't think this level of detail is needed in the intro. You could just say "depending on the method" or something.
- " is a migratory bird" Is this really needed in the first sentence of the intro, when you explain it migrates in more detail furhter dow the paragrapgh?
- "extra-pair paternity puzzling." Seems too informal.
- "hese do no significantly affect breeding" Not?
- "but, on nestlings, these do no significantly affect breeding" This seems oddly worded, as if it is the nestlings that are breeding.
- "This swallow is vulnerable" Again, seems odd that swallow would be linked all the way down in the third paragraph of the intro.
Comments Support by Cas Liber
edit
Taking a look now...
...is a migratory bird found in North America in the family Hirundinidae. - the construction sounds odd to me, but I concede that it is ambiguous if the family comes before "North America" (so not a deal-breaker). In any case, I would make it of the family... rather than "in"...-
the eyes are a dark brown- any reason why "a" is here? why are first year females and not first year males mentioned in lead?The tree swallow is found in North America, where it breeds in the US and Canada.- you've already mentioned it is found in North America in the first sentence - I'd remove that and give more exactness to the range.- I removed the second mention, and I changed the first sentence to say "Americas", since it can be found to winter in South America.
The tree swallow nests either by itself- err, not in pairs?can we link "acidified lakes" to somewhere?I think as Polygynous means "mating with more than one female", I think using plain words is better than a jargony one. But agree that shoehorning in the meaning could make the sentence repetitive...- I personally think that most people know what polygyny is, so I won't do this. I will put it in parentheses if you insist, but I think that it is obvious from context; I already say how breeding males are polygynous, so I don't think there is much room for confusion. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact that it is able to habitate open areas- "habitate"?? surely there is a plainer word...The tree swallow usually renests in the same area to breed again- "nests" is fine, "renests" unnecessarylink territory, tree limit, antigen and hypothermiaNests produced by females of better condition often have sex ratios skewed towards high quality males.- errr, what's a high quality male?
more later - need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC) provisionally looks ok otherwise. Will look more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok all looks pretty good on prose and comphrehensiveness-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim
edit
No major issues, but some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Tachycineta, where it is depending on the method, either basal to the whole genus, or basal just to a clade consisting of the violet-green, golden, and Bahama swallow. —is this necessary in the lead? It's technical stuff that's off-putting to the casual reader.
- grey-brown washed breast—grey-brown-washed breast.
- The tree swallow nests either in pairs or loose groups—It always nests in pairs, better "isolated pairs" or something similar.
- Monogamous; Long Island, New York; exoskeleton—link at first occurence.
- tree swallow forages both by itself…—forages alone…
- Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. —(in lead as well). This is very parochial. The US legislation is an implementation of the Migratory Bird Treaty between the US and Canada, but the Canadian implementation, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, isn't even mentioned.
- The tree swallow forages 0 to 50 metres (160 ft) above the ground —forages up to 50 metres(160 ft) above the ground seems more natural
- In the tree swallow, some components of the immune system deteriorate with age. —Is this typical of all swallows? All birds? All vertebrates?
- Well, I think that some components of the immune system deteriorating instead of others is relatively common throughout the animals, but it seems that other passerines recently studied displayed deterioration of acquired humoral immunity, contrasting with tree swallows. I put the sentence "The lack of deterioration in the former contrasts with some other studies of passerines" into the article. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Coord note edit
Source review, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Should update iucn redlist reference
- refs all formatted consistently
- Earwigs is clear
In FN 1, I dunno where the range of 834000 km2 is.
- FN 6, used once, material in source
- FN 17, used once, material in source
- FN 43, used twice, material in source
Ok - spot check ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Tks Cas -- are you happy to sign off on the quality/reliability of the sources used? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2018 (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) 10:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.