Western Jackdaw

Western Jackdaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Western Jackdaw/archive1

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) [reply]

We're nominating this for featured article because it got a thorough going over by Keilana (talk · contribs) at GAN, and it's been scrutinised by folks at the birds wikiproject. I feel it's really come together nicely and am confident outstanding issues can be dealt with quickly here (especially with two of us). So have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber, Cwmhiraeth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review ... (special guest appearance from the past... blame Brian!)

• World cat shows Valpy ref (#4) with a publisher of Adamant Media Corporation?
  • fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes http://www.globaltwitcher.com/artspec.asp?thingid=26248 a high quality reliable source? (Current ref 13)
  • good point. globaltwitcher unneeded as the fact about four subspecies in most detailed treatises, so have removed and left commented-out note that ref after sentence after covers both sentences. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes http://calidris.home.xs4all.nl/jackdaw.htm a high quality reliable source? (Current ref 15) ... if it is high quality - it needs publisher, accessdate, etc. - all the bibliographical information.
  • Well referenced article published by the Dutch Birding Association in their journal. I have reformatted the reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As the previous ... what makes http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/birds/jackdaw.htm a high quality reliable source? And needs bibliographical information if it is.
  • It is written by a well-qualified british birdwatcher and the site has been favourably reviewed. Will expand the ref. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes it marginally reliable (but iffy) but what makes it "high quality"? Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found a new, reliable source (current ref 79) for the information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 39 (Birdlife International) needs bibliographical information.
  • Fixed now Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "The range is vast, with an estimated global extent of between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 km². It has a large global population, with an estimated 10 to 29 million individuals in Europe alone." is sourced to this source but that source says there are "In Europe, the breeding population is estimated to number 5200000-15000000 breeding pairs, equating to 15600000-45000000 individuals..." which seems to be a different number than that in the article...
  • Numbers changed in article Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Otherwise, three other spotchecks of online sources found no issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Corvus_monedula_distribution_de.svg: pages for source?
  • dammit. misplaced the goddamn thumbstick where I'd had all the cramp info. Can fix tomorrow....and ask about t'other pagenumbers added nowCasliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Borrowed_plumes.jpg: date of death for author? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harrison Weir died in 1906. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have a query on referencing. Why there is a "works cited" section in the references? This section contains two books. I can see there are many book already cited in the references section, so why those two books are included in a special section? Why don't integrate those two books in the references section also? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The works cited bit contains two books of which I referenced multiple separate pages. The inline references thus highlight the specific page of information and the bottom place is the location of the complete reference (rather than writing it out in full each time) We've made them link automatically before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So why not reference the other books in this same way? Then there should be a consistency in referencing? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question. For books where I've only used a single page or a small pagerange, I generally just leave them in the inline section where their full details are. It's only when I've used a large pagerange for lots of different items that I do this Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well-written article, meets FAC. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I don't mind if folks are mean thorough at FAC, we're suckers for punishment keen to make the article as good as possible. ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: File:Corvus-01.jpg. Has this bird got some tail feathers missing? Is this a representative image? Snowman (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I have no idea. Could it have just been a windy day? Not sure..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be moulting, I suppose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is moulting, where are its new feathers? Without a satisfactory explanation of missing tail feathers to include in the caption, I think that this image should not be shown in the article. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've removed the image. It is not an overly informative one and we have alot of images in the article so no great loss. I'll double check to see if we have any other interesting flying shots Snowman I am happy if you want to check commons and add any photos or advise on which (if any) photos might add something educational to the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Why not just "described it formally" instead of "described it formally"
• What makes Wiktionary a reliable source?
• Note the hidden comment "not the right place; which volume?". Has this been solved?
• I've added a citation needed tag.
• Is "upperparts" correct here?
• "6 and 11 metres per second" - feet per second?
• Why are "pigeon" and "chough" miniscule but "Rook" capitalised?
• Compare: ""chyak-chyak" or "kak-kak"" to "transcribed as kiaw or kyow"
• You've got Lake Baikal linked at least twice
• "agonistic" - Perhaps a link?
• Rubbish tips - Is that a purely British term? Is there a more general word available?
• "Breeding colonies may also edge out those of the Red-billed Chough (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax)" - First instance was up in etymology. Why is the species name down in behaviour?
• Egg sizes - Why no imperial?
• Check your capitalisations on "jackdaw" as a stand-alone word. I'm seeing both capital and miniscule letters.
• "kavka" - is the link really necessary?

• That's about it, interesting read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]