Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Song Thrush

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 00:37, 20 March 2008.

Song Thrush[edit]

Check external links

Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because passed GA Jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article includes one Song Thrush kept in a cage, and perhaps this practice has not been fully explained. Should the history and legal aspects of this practice be expanded? Snowman (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "carry pathogens such tick-borne encephalitis": how common is this and in which parts of the world is it likely. I think that this only applies to a few places in the world and virtually unknown to occur in western Europe, but I might be mistaken. I think encephalitis needs putting into better context. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • forested areas of C/E Europe and Russia added Jimfbleak (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enjoyed reading this article. Very nicely written and referenced. A few comments:
  • First sentence of the Classification section is a bit long and awkward.
  • The article implies that the practice of keeping the Song Thrush in cages is illegal; this needs to be clarified as the source indicates that only the trade of the bird would be banned.
  • I think "the trade in wild birds has recently been made illegal" is still problematic. It seems to say that trade in wild birds of all species is illegal, and that trade in captive-bred Song Thrushes may be legal. Would it be better as, "the trade in Song Thrushes has recently been made illegal"? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the ban on Song Thrush sales in China controversial? I wonder why China is willing to defy 2,000 years of tradition to protect a Least Concern species. Perhaps the reasoning could be described more fully?
  • For such a common bird, the pictures could probably be improved:
  • The Description section should have a picture that shows the bird more clearly. The current picture is a bit too dark. There are a few nice free pictures here.
  • Try to make pictures face the text.
  • Image:Song_Thrush-Mindaugas_Urbonas-2.jpg, if used, should be cropped. More bird, less grass :)
  • Try to include at least one picture of juveniles, chicks, nests, and/or eggs. There are some here; I don't think any of these are free, however photographers are often willing to grant a CC-by-SA license if asked. Good luck!

Best, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the text, no indication of how controversial. I'll respond to image queries on talk page until i know what I'm doing. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to a follow-up letter, The Times article that you have quoted only included the Song Thrush because of confusion with other species; see timesonline. Was the article news about the Song Thrush or other species? Snowman (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the article need to include the Laughingthrush as a possible souse of confusion as it is not a thrush? Snowman (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the China bit, but given the ambiguity, might be better to remove mention altogether? Jimfbleak (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the ambiguity with caged birds in China is a deficiency. Are their better sources? Snowman (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going on what people said at the bird club a few years ago, I think that British wild birds can be legally traded in the UK providing they have a leg ring on to prove that they are captive bread. Also British birds for show do not have to have a ring. but the owner needs to keep good records in case of an investigation and they can not be sold. I think that there are a lot of regulations for keeping British birds, which are all well documented and easy to find on the internet, but I have not looked it up recently, so I might be wrong. Snowman (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure what you say is more-or-less correct, but there is little I can find, apart from the ambiguous China bit, to suggest that catching/trading/keeping wild Song Thrushes is a significant problem anywhere. I don't want this to become an article about general bird-keeping legislation instead of T. philomelos. Adding details for the legislation in GB would be very parochial unless I also did it for the other countries in this bird's huge range, and that would completely distort the article. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note reviewers please note that I will be away until Tuesday. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I would like to make is that the article implies that bird keeping is illegal, but this is not correct and the article needs fixing. At least in the UK, bird keeping is legal, but there are rules and regulations and the birds must be captive bread (afaik). I agree that the article need not include too much about bird keeping. A quick fix might be just to refer to wild-caught birds in the article, but I do not know the laws all around the world. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the last sentence to clarify that I'm referring to wild birds. Obviously trade in captive-bred birds, whether legal or not, cannot affect the wild population numbers. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've shepherded this article at various times. Looks good, although agree it'd be nice to get some more diverse images but concede this may be difficult and hence not a deal-breaker. The gould painting is helpful here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Cautious neutral. 1a, and the lead is slender. Here are random examples of the issues.

  • Opening sentences start with "It is". "It is". "Its". Insert "the" before the "throstle", to match the very first word.
  • "Its distinctive song with repeated musical phrases has frequently been referenced in poetry."—Harvard or Vancouver systems?
  • "This thrush breeds in forests, gardens and parks, and is partially migratory, with many birds wintering in southern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East; it has been introduced to New Zealand and Australia. Although this species, despite hunting, is not threatened globally, there have been serious declines in the west of its range due to changes in farming practices." Too many disparate ideas packed awkwardly into these sentences. And do the NZ ones winter in Southern Europe? Introduced into. This × 2. West of which range? "and IS vulnerable to predation by cats and ...". Tony (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the above quibbles small. Good article. Please incorporate the recordings from [1] -Ravedave (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the above comment to be small. Tony (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the sound file, thanks for that, Ravedave. I've addressed the copyediting issues, although I'm not clear why referenced can only apply to book-type references. I would have thought these minor issues could either have been addressed by fixing, or by a comment rather than an oppose, but I note this editor's last comment too. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look good. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comprehensive, good prose. Some minor points however are
    • Use of the confusable and somewhat difficult word "predated" in the feeding section
    • Would have liked more scholarly references summarized in the article - Unable to see many of the Google Scholar results referred here. Shyamal (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments
    • First sentence - use that instead of which.
    • "...there have been serious declines in the west of its breeding range due to changes in farming practices." This statement is never really explained. Later in the article you simply paraphrase it. What farming practices, and how do they affect its range?
    • Stylistic but ungrammatical use of commas - do not use commas to separate clauses that don't stand on their own. There are many of these throughout - check the whole article, please.
    • In the Distribution and habitat section, the section beginning with "Birds of the nominate subspecies..." loses me. What is a nominate subspecies? You move from talking about the "birds" plural to "it" singular and I can't determine what is meant.
    • "Its flight is strong and direct, and they cross the sea..." Again, moving from singular to plural for no apparent reason.
      • This was partly my error - the original statement was using singular to say that "they" migrate in a broad front. Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check the spacing in the Voelker citation - looks like there are no spaces after commas. --Laser brain (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed these. Taken out China bit altogether, since probably not this species. Reasons for farm decline not known, reworded, Baggies ref not needed, removed. I don't know what to do about the mollusc site, I'll see if i can find an academic site later. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed snail ref Jimfbleak (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This was an interesting article. I don't know anything about birds, so I come to the article as an interested lay person. Here are my questions and suggestions for improvement:
  • It is brown above and black-spotted cream or buff below, and has two recognised subspecies. - I think the "above" and "below" language is a bit confusing - I think that a bit more description is required.
  • Although not threatened globally, there have been serious population declines in parts of Europe, possibly due to changes in farming practices. - Could you briefly describe the farming practices?
  • This is still vague - if it cannot be described, delete it. Awadewit (talk)
  • That doesn't sound like a good idea to me: "If you don't have more information, delete the little you have"? Yomanganitalk 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we're at the stage, in my opinion, that it is so vague that it nearly meaningless. Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Song Thrush was described by German ornithologist Christian Ludwig Brehm in 1831 under its current scientific name. - Slightly confused by "under its current scientific name" - does this mean "given its current scientific name"?
Sorry, it means it still bears the first name it was described as; many species, if not most, have one or more changes along the line. Is it clearer now? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so picky, but does the new version mean that Brehm gave the thrush its scientific name? It's not totally clear. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is still unclear. Awadewit (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This name derives from the Latin word Turdus - Does it derive from Latin or is actually Latin?
Well, the word didn't change at all so I guess it is the latin really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • these three species are early offshoots from the main radiation of Turdus thrushes, and hence more distantly related to other European species such as the Blackbird (T. merula) - What does "main radiation" mean exactly?
Changed to "are early offshoots from the lineage of Turdus thrushes before they diversified and spread across the globe". - i.e. they are early offshoots off a family tree which split into many species and spread around the globe. Feel free - spread worldwide etc. if you reckon the last few words are too colloquial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. p. clarkei, described by German zoologist Ernst Hartert in 1909, and named for Eagle Clarke, occurs in the rest of Great Britain, Ireland and on mainland Europe in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and possibly somewhat further east. - "lives" rather than "occurs", maybe?
  • It intergrades with the nominate subspecies in central Europe, and with T. m. hebridensis in the Inner Hebrides and western Scotland. - What does "intergrade" mean?
It means hybridises where their ranges overlap. We can add "and intermediate forms/birds with intermediate characteristics are seen" if needed as well. Do you think we need to add it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to make any scientific pronouncements. I usually just announce when I can't understand something. :) Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The breeding habitat is forest with good undergrowth close to more open areas, and in the west of the breeding range gardens and parks are also utilised. - awkward wording
done
The passive voice is awkward here. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded
  • T. p. hebridensis breeds in more open country, including heathland. - Could we find a good link for "heathland"?
linked
  • In the east of the range the Song Thrush is more restricted to the edge of conifer forest. - slightly confusing what range we're discussing at this point
done
Still confusing - it seems like we might be talking about T. p. hebridensis, but then the sentence says just "song thrush". Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reworded
  • Vagrants have been recorded in Greenland, various Atlantic islands, and West Africa. - I'm not entirely sure what "vagrants" means in this context - I can guess, but I would rather not. :)
linked
  • The female incubates alone for 10–17 days, with a similar time until the young fledge. - This sentence needs to be expanded for clarity.
done
  • This species is occasionally a host of parasitic cuckoos, such as the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), but this is minimal because the thrush recognizes the cuckoo's non-mimetic eggs,[3] although it does not demonstrate the aggression toward the adult intruder that is shown by the Blackbird. - This sentence needs to be split into two and explained further. Also, the "this's" become a bit vague.
done
The "this's" are still a problem and now the "it" has an incorrect reference. I would also explain further. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reworded
However, the Song Thrush does not demonstrate the aggression toward the adult intruder that is shown by the Blackbird. - What "adult intruder"? This still needs to be explained further. Awadewit | talk 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
almost missed this amongst BTO stuff, changed to adult cuckoo
  • Can you tell me what the BTO is? It looks like it might have user-generated information but it also looks professional.
linked
I'm not quite sure of the response here. I was asking the editors to reassure us that the site is reliable. It was already linked. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the BTO conducts ornithological research and advises the Government. It publishes Bird Study, a major scientific journal, Ringing & Migration, the Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland, the Winter Atlas, a Historical Atlas and Migration Atlas. I would have thought that its credentials were impeccable.
I saw that, but the website looks like it takes user-generated information. That was the root of my question. Awadewit | talk 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where to go with this - if you really think that BTO refs 3 and 28 are unreliable, that effectively sinks half-a-dozen existing FAs for birds with a range that includes western Europe. These two refs have their own internal refs - or do you mean that the fact that they use BTO survey information, some of which is from non-professionals, makes them suspect? Sorry to appear dim, but I really don't understand how the BTO can be viewed as "self-published" or "user generated" when the UK government accepts its data. Also note that ref 28 is a joint publication with the JNCC, if that helps with your concerns. Jimfbleak (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sheer amount of data in the two refs, perhaps it would be helpful if you could indicate which facts/figures you think are unverified, and I'll try to find other sources, or failing that, remove the information. For some data, like egg size, there won't be any other sources. Jimfbleak (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have to understand I know nothing about birds, so I was just worried when I saw the site used "volunteers". I wasn't sure what that meant. However, if the British government accepts its data, that reassures me. I still am curious who these "volunteers" are, though, and how the whole system works. Awadewit | talk 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BTO work is Citizen science. It is more authoritative than "science" by individuals - since it has a large number of volunteers who ensure that the results are less biased by individual variation. Here are some links to help assure you that "volunteers" can indeed ensure quality - [2] full text :) Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This mdtravelhealth site looks like it might be self-published. Do you think it should qualify under WP:SPS? Are there any other, more reliable sources, with the same information?
not needed anyway, removed
  • I'm not entirely sure if Image:Old west bromwich albion crest.png needs a fair use rationale. All of the other images, which are well-chosen and lovely, are public domain or creative commons of one type or another.
I'm not sure, not my image, but the fair use bit does no harm
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant was - there is no fair use rationale for this image, but it seems like it might need one. There is a fair use rationale for the other page on which this image is used. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that fair use has to be explained for each page that the image appears on. The image might be more than 100 years old and in the public domain, but this needs clarification as the source in unclear. Snowman (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this. I especially enjoyed listening to the bird call - nice touch! I look forward to supporting the article soon. Awadewit | talk 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've fixed all the issues not picked up by Casliber. The farming practices bit is equally vague in the literature; it seems clear that intensive farming in western Europe has a pronounced effect, but I haven't yet found a definitive source to say what the relevant factors are. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found an authoritative ref that speculates on the reasons, and added that Jimfbleak (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all but the image now, do that next. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a fair use rationale, although I'm not totally convinced it's necessary. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments It's an enjoyable read but a little confusing and thin in places. A few minor points to clear up and then I'll support:
    • It seems not entirely sure about the distribution of T. p. hebridensis: first it is found in the Outer Hebrides and Isle of Skye in Scotland, then we have T. p. clarkei interbreeding with it in the Inner Hebrides and western Scotland, and then it is (I assume) referred to as the Hebridean race and the Hebridean subspecies.
      I've tried to clarify this, the pure birds are Outer Hebrides, and mixed race birds in the Inner Hebrides. The books use "intergrade", which is perfect, but had to be removed as too technicalJimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The upperparts of this species become colder and greyer in tone going east across the breeding range from Sweden to Siberia. Colder and greyer in tone? Some of that is redundant. Also it should be made clear whether individuals change colour as they move east during the breeding season or whether the birds that breed farthest east are greyer birds before they move east. And "upperparts" isn't a word as far as I'm aware (though I won't get upset if somebody can correct me). I'm guessing that this was put in to address the "above" and "below" confusion. "Upper parts" (two words) is OK, but I haven't changed it as you might be able to think of a better word.
      I think I've clarified the tone bit. Clements, main source, says "upperparts", other books use "above" and "below" :) Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • exotic birds in captivity, such as White-faced Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna viduata). Budgies are more popular than White-faced Whistling Duck as captive exotics. I take this to mean that the whistle of this duck is often mimicked by the Song Thrush, but it needs to be made clear.
      done Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The species with which it is most likely to be confused is the Redwing. Most likely seems a bit of a reach. Is that based on the single reference?
      Yes, but I take the point, and I've reworded Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Song Thrush breeds in most of Europe (although not in the greater part of Iberia). From the map it also appears not to breed in the greater part of Italy, Greece, the Balkans or the Mediterranean islands.
      Not my map, and I lack the skills to fix it, but it does breed in at least the first three and some of the islands Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 0.2% is missing from the nesting site statistics. Picky.
      fixed Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to know more about the introduction to New Zealand and Australia. Why was it introduced? Any attempts to eradicate it? Alien species aren't normally that popular.
      There is little on the introduction that I can find beyond what's here. no mention of eradication attempts, but I'll look again. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      nothing Jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Another edit found a ref suggesting sentiment was the reason, added
      It appears that they have some impact on native invertebrate species in NZ [3] [4] and are regarded as a pest in orchards. There appears to be no plan to eradicate them but they are not protected [5] Yomanganitalk 12:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
added pest status, see also my note on your talk page Jimfbleak (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is Eurasian Sparrowhawk piped while European Magpie is not?
      fixed Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are the effects of the parasitic infestations for the birds? Does Lyme Disease occur in thrushes or is there a risk of transmission to humans (or is that statement not relevant)?
      There's not a great deal on the parasitology of this species. I couldn't find anything to answer either question.
      Added a ref that suggests that birds act as a reservoir for Lyme Disease. I think its impossible to know what species has previously hosted a tick that bites a human unless it occurs during the handling of an animal. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Song Thrush plays a pivotal role in The Hobbit as I recall. Might be worth mentioning in the In Culture section (which is an unappealing title. I wondered whether I would see it in a petri dish in this section. "Cultural references" perhaps?)
      "In culture" is fairly standard in bird article. My own view is that there is enough in this section already (where do you stop?) and the examples given have clear links to the bird's song and behaviour Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Getting the balance between what needs to be in "Pop culture" and what will constantly be added and re-added is always tricky. Yomanganitalk 12:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The male thrush's beak should open and close when the audio clip is playing. (It's a joke, don't block me). Yomanganitalk 02:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      LOL Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article reads as if the distribution of tick born encephalitis is the same as Borrelia bacteria. I think that the distribution of Borrelia is much wider than the distribution of tick born encephalitis (Eastern Europe and Russia). Snowman (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked to clarify - please amend if still not clear Jimfbleak (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been concerned about the wiki bird articles making each individual bird species sound like a health hazard, and I think the spread of infections to humans needs to be put in context here again. A zoonosis is about whole ecosystems. Many birds and animals (probably over 100 species) carry these sort of ticks and contribute to the infection pool, and the tick life cycle is complex. The introduction of the Pär Comstedt reference from 2005 says that; "birds participate in the ecology of zoonotic infections, an important cause of illness and death in humans and animals" and "Information that would allow comparison of the reservoir importance of bird and other vertebrate populations is not available or is controversial." Snowman (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blindfold test—Further to my "Oppose" above, which was promptly derided as small quibbles, I took one section at random, removed the blindfold, and look what I found:

(aww, it wasn't Jim nor me...:( )
Not by me, although I thought your response was a bit bitey. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ok, done)
  • "The reasons for the decline are poorly understood but may relate to the effect on food supply and the availability of nest sites of a switch from spring to autumn sowing of cereals, and possibly the increased use of pesticides.[31]" Hard to read; consider dashes (... to the effect – on food ... sites – of a switch ...). "The", not "a switch". And I think you need to narrow it down a little—"the recent switch", or better "the switch over the past 50 years" or whatever. The when and/or the where. This is poor.
Rephrased
  • "... and the habit of using the hard surface of roads to smash snails leads to some road kills." I had to read it twice, slowly, to understand that it's the thrushes that use the hard surface, not the road builders. "Some" is weak: does it really add to the meaning?
(how about "can lead to road kills")?
rephrased
  • "However, as with hunting, there is little evidence that the taking of wild birds for aviculture has had a significant effect on wild populations.[7]" Ref 7 is cited an awful lot (up to letter S in the ref list). But it doesn't look authoritative to me, as part of an ID guide series. Is this a scientific or research-based text? (Clement, Peter; Hathway, Ren; Wilczur, Jan (2000). Thrushes (Helm Identification Guides). Christopher Helm Publishers Ltd, 392–395. [please fix the hyphens in the ref list that should be en dashes—see MOS.]
(It isn't my book but if I know anything it is that 3 whole pages on the Song Thrush is a lot more detailed than just about any other text published, and I'd guess it represents the most detailed synthesis of information available. However, Jim should be along soon as I need to sleep. Will see what has happened when I wake up)
Although describing themselves as ID guides, these are standard, fully referenced family monographs - Thrushes has 9 dense pages of references. Only six refer to the Song Thrush, but these include Birds of the Western Palaeartic, the major multi-volume ref for all European species.Jimfbleak (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the past, the Song Thrush was sometimes kept as a cage bird because of its melodious voice.[35]" Gee, "in the past" means a lot. When? Sometimes? Sorry to be mean, but these words in this context do not conceal the fuzziness of the writing; in fact, they reveal it.
tweaked Jimfbleak (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of the density of issues that make promotion unlikely until the text is properly gone through. It will require a good copy-editor AND the collaboration of the expert(s) who wrote the article, since there's information that needs to be filled in/cast in more specific terms. Tony (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the comments by User:Yomangan (thanks for the vote) and Tony, I've done another section-by-section copyedit. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts! I've just read the article again. Unfortunately, it just doesn't quite flow yet. For some reason, I have to read a lot of the sentences twice to figure out what they are saying. I'm not quite sure why this is. however. I think it could be because of all of the species names and parentheticals. Awadewit (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to go round in circles. For example, in the hybrid bit, I had to remove the perfect word "intergrade" as too technical, the replacement "hybridises" was considered too vague, so I had to resort to writing out the subspecies names each time - hence "all of the species names and parentheticals". The only other solution is to take out the hybrids bit altogether. Jimfbleak (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the fort Sandy/Raul/Jim, I will ask a recently retired master copyeditor very very nicely and cross my fingers...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holding with no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for positive input. In the meantime, I've rewritten the hybrid bit (sorry, "intergrade" is back), split the agriculture bit into two more intelligible sentences, and removed scientific names where they add nothing or are used inconsistently (eg for cuckoo, but not magpie). I've also removed my more intemperate comments from above Jimfbleak (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't want to stand in the way, so I've withdrawn my oppose. But let's hope the wonderful Circeus can be coaxed back into service. It's much improved, anyway. However, please tell me what the earthly use of Greek letters is:

Her name is derived from the Ancient Greek philo-/φιλο- (loving) and melos/μελος (song).

This clutters the text, makes it quite hard to soldier through the sentence, and—beyond PManderson and other classics experts—is quite useless to our readers, since the transliteration is provided and the Greek symbols are hardly likely to aid a web search. Tell me, please ... Tony (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me..worth discussing on an MOS page. I am the guilty party for putting them there. I like them in other alphabets as they are a direct transliteration, whether of Arabic, Chinese or Greek. The former two have many characters which may be ambiguous if written solely in Roman characters, and I don't find them distracting myself, however I do try and use them only sparingly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - in between the two comments above, I took the Greek out (I don't have strong views either way) obviously needs to be discussed elsewhere. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the return of migration in Sweden really May, doesn't they start being back in Sweden in early April? Narayanese (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked in Clements, which actually says May in northern Sweden, so I've corrected to that. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made some important basic fixes to image placement per WP:MOS#Images, but otherwise it's very good. VanTucky 03:10, 19 March 2008 (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/Song_Thrush&oldid=1078806775"