Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Southern boobook/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) 00:30, 31 December 2017 [1].
Southern boobook[edit]
This article got a thorough going-over at GAN and I think is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)\
Image review
- Have to say, I'm having trouble figuring out from the legend which of the map colours is meant to be which - for example, which of the greens is pale and which is dark?
- that was tricky...
.I will see what I can do - i.e. make the range map of one subspecies paler and eliminate the political boundaries. ok I made the pale green more unambiguously paler and removed the political colours, leaving all land not inhabited by this bird white. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)- Okay... what is the colour covering most of Australia? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- that was tricky...
- File:Ninox_boobook_fusca_Keulemans.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Umimmak[edit]
I don't feel like I have enough experience to support or oppose. I have some initial notes and questions; feel free to do with as you please.
Lede, infobox, and Taxonomy
- [Addendum: Infobox image: do you want to specify this is S. b. boobook, not any other subspecies? 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
- [Addendum: How do you pronounce "boobook", this is an unfamiliar word to me, at least and I can think of at least three plausible pronunciations: /bubuk/, /bubʊk/, or /boʊboʊk/. And as a general note, maybe it isn't standard for ornithologists but all of these pronunciation spellings of the calls aren't super clear. For "mopoke", e.g., I could imagine it trying to represent a call like /moʊpoʊkeɪ/ or /mɑpoʊk/, but as the source also has "morepork", which presumably reflects a non-rhotic pronunciation, I guess it's something like /moʊpoʊk/. It might be helpful if prounciations of the English representations of the calls can be added in with reliable sources 03:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC).]
- I noted my suggestion re the map colour above
- How are the author citations for Ninox boobook and Strik boobook both Latham, 1801? Missing parentheses?
- IUCN should be updated to reflect the new 2016 version, and should be cited as suggested in Template:IUCN
- [Addendum: Perhaps the taxobox should also list the subspecies? Or at least mention how many there are. 03:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
- Parentheses around subgenera should not be italicized.
- "A local Aboriginal word" -- do we just not know which language? local to which area?
- "this is now regarded as a synonym." The word "now" is unhelpful (MOS:CURRENT) -- say who synonymized it and when, or use the Template:As of to note it was in 2017 when you checked whichever database.
- "renaming S. boobook to Ieraglaux (Spiloglaux) bubuk." I'm confused, so he just randomly decided to invalidly emend the specific name?
- S. maculatus all of a sudden gets mentioned like the reader should be familiar with it. I'm presuming this is some other species than than another synonym (like S. marmoratus), so wikilink?
- And so your list of synonyms doesn't reflect all combinations which are synonymous, then, since you only have A. marmorata, not S. marmoratus? Which is standard?
- More of "the native name", okay maybe we don't know which language but do we know where Dawes or Caley asked for the indiginous name? Like what you do later for Gould.
- "Dutch naturalist Gerlof Mees and evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr" makes it seem like Mayr is Dutch as well
- [Addendum: Who transferred it Ninox was it Mees in 1964? 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
- why did you italizice the *b* in "cytochrome b"? And that should probably be wikilinked.
- Is it kosher to just refer to a specific name by itself as you do for "leucopsis", "novaeseelandiae", and "connivens"?
- Do you have any secondary sources that talk about Wink et al.'s and Gwee et al.'s studies? How were they received by others?
- "A 2017 study by Singapore-based biologist Chyi Yin Gwee and colleagues [...], In a 2017 paper, Gwee and colleagues" -- this makes it seem like they're not the same paper.
Subspecies
- [Addendum: caption should be capitalized, and I personally think it should give credit to the illustrator, viz., John Gerrard Keulemans 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
- "Eleven subspecies are recognised by the IOC" Template:As of? This is esp important in case they change due to Gwee et al's recommendations. It also might be better to have more of an introduction here, say which subspecies have been suggested to be reclassified by Gwee et al., for instance.
- Type localities of the subspecies?
- damn there are alot of these... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Casliber: like I said I don't consider myself an expert in FA bird articles; I just wanted to raise the issue and see if excluding them was made for a reason. Maybe if not for the subspecies perhaps at least for the species as a whole? Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have added it for the species as a whole and ones (such as lurida and ocellata) where they don't come from an island (eg. The type specimen for Kangaroo Island is just listed as "Kangaroo Island" in the source...which makes it repetitive and not really informative Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Casliber: like I said I don't consider myself an expert in FA bird articles; I just wanted to raise the issue and see if excluding them was made for a reason. Maybe if not for the subspecies perhaps at least for the species as a whole? Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- damn there are alot of these... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- "It is sometimes included in the nominate subspecies." -- are König et al. claiming this synonymy or merely reporting others have?
- " it is known to the local people as" again who are they? The peoples local to which area? Aboriginal Australians are not a homogenous group.
- here it refers to the indigenous people of Rote Island. have changed "local" to "indigenous" - should I add "of Rote Island" here too? worried it might be a bit repetitive... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- I still think it's a bit unclear...the source makes it seem like these are the names in two different languages, but right now the article reads as if they're two terms of a single language instead. Umimmak (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- ok, have added "of Rote Island" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I was more getting at how the source says one word was used by the people in one part of Rote Island and the other by the people in another part, i.e., they're presumably different languages, not just synonyms of the same language. Even changing people to "peoples" might be clearer. Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- ok, have added "of Rote Island" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I still think it's a bit unclear...the source makes it seem like these are the names in two different languages, but right now the article reads as if they're two terms of a single language instead. Umimmak (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- here it refers to the indigenous people of Rote Island. have changed "local" to "indigenous" - should I add "of Rote Island" here too? worried it might be a bit repetitive... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- When did S. fusca become N. b. fusca?
- "than subspecies boobook" Is it okay to just have subspecific name insteas of N. b. boobook?
- "collected by Kuhn in 1902 on Moa." Who's Kuhn? You only give his last name like we know who he is.
- I'm just assuming throughout that in the absence of providing a different basionym that these subspecies were all described explicitly as a subspecies of N. boobook.
"different to subspecies boobok" Is this standard in Australian English? "Different to" is often proscribed in formal American English, although I think it might be acceptable in British EnglishI just saw this in academic Australian English so you're good with "different to" I guess 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Umimmak (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Description
- [Addendum: "Roosting boobook" image -- is this a southern Boobook? Is the subspecies known? 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
- No sex difference in size?
- "The bill is black with a pale blue-grey base and cere" It's a bit weird to all of a sudden discuss cere in the midst of several sentences discussing color, especially since this is likely to be an unfamiliar term.
- I wonder if it might be useful to have photos illustrating differences with possibly confusable species?
- "in mainly Eucalypt forest" why is Eucalypt capitalized?
- "In fact, it can adapt to any habitat as long as there are some trees present" -- this seems a bit strong... surely not every habitat?
Behavior
- [Addendum: lowercase common name 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
- It's a shame there's apparently(?) no free audio. I wonder if it might be useful to bring up the sound file in external links within an "external media" template
- "the second note generally lower than the first" clarify lower in pitch, not volume
- "Birds give a harsher version of the call when mobbing intruders" wikilink mobbing
- "one and twenty metres (3-70 ft)" Is there a reason you don't use the convert template? At the very least the hyphen should become an en-dash
- "The young vomit up pellets " make less garden pathy.
- "which becomes quite smelly" The word "smelly" strikes me as being entirely too informal for an encyclopedia
- "and raptors such as the brown goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus), [..], and probably powerful owl seize young birds." I'm confused, is "probably powerful owl" a common name for a species of owl?
- "Prey species were mainly ..." I wonder if this list should be split up instead of a single sentence that spans half the paragraph
References
- You're inconsistent about the use of
|via=
-- I don't think it's necessary to say via BHL if that's where the URL goes.
- This is just my own personal preference, but I'd prefer to see a more consistent use of DOIs and links to the publisher's versions, e.g., doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1846.tb00135.x for Gould 1846
- I'm not sure I see the benefit to wikilinking Gould in a reference that immediately follows a sentence wikilinking Gould.
- The google books link for Gould does not take the reader straight to the relevant page.
- Gould 1846 also lacks volume information.
- I'm confused why you list Giacon's first name as "Gianbattista (John)"; he listed his name on the chapter as "John Giacon" doi:10.1515/9781614510581.251 [moved 03:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
- ISBNs should all be consistently 13 digits and hyphenated
- I'm not sure I see the benefit to wikilinking in references in general -- why would the reader want to know more about the journal Zoologische Verhandelingen?
- [Addendum: You just cite Higgins 1999 as if he's the author of the entire book, but he's only the senior editor. You seem to only be citing from one chapter which has its own title, author, and pages, within this book, and these should be specified in the reference. Umimmak (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
- [Addenda: why don't you have the full citation for "Is the Timor southern boobook a separate species?" You should have the date (2010), volume (28), issue (1), page (10), journal (Boobook) at the minimum. 03:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC) ]
Umimmak (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim[edit]
I fixed a couple of obvious typos. Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- it was for many years considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand until 1999—perhaps keep temporal elements together as it was for many years prior to 1999 considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand
- continent and Tasmania— is Tasmania not considered part of the Australian continent?
- The legend for your map would look neater if you had the left align column of colour boxes vertically aligned
- 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) —over-precise conversion for this purpose
- Link babbler, Pellet (ornithology) powerful owl
- killed with rat poison— any particular poison?
- added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Changed to support above, a nice article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Support Comments from Aa77zz[edit]
Lead
- "Described by John Latham in 1801, it was for generally considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand until 1999." Something wrong here.
Breeding
- Does the male defend a territory outside the breeding season?
- Does the female help with defending the breeding territory?
- Is the pair bond maintained from one year to the next?
- Does the female start incubating when the clutch is complete - or does she start when the first egg is laid? In other words - do the eggs all hatch at the same time (synchronously)? If not, presumably the last born does not survive when food is scarce.
- How long do southern boobooks live? What is the oldest recorded?
- Aa77zz (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
After posting the above I discovered that the Higgins article is available online. The answers to my questions are not always straightforward
- Perhaps mention that the young stay with their parents for some weeks after fledging. p.860
- "Some sites are reused for up to 20 years, especially if broods have been successfully raised in them before." I find this sentence confusing. To me it suggests that an individual pair could use a site for up to 20 years - but southern boobooks do not live that long.
- Aa77zz (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
All good. Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Comments from WereSpielChequers[edit]
Nice read, I've made some tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. Not sure if the phrase "Caves or ledges are alternative roosting sites if there are no trees available." is fully compatible with the idea of them being restricted to habitats where there are trees. But anyway the prose is of FA standard ϢereSpielChequers 23:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support - The article looked good when I GA passed it, and of course looks even better now with additional fixes. I would give dates for the artworks, though. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2017 (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) 00:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.