Talk:Beautiful nuthatch

DYK

The range on this bird does not match any measurement in the source (there is none to be found) and it doesn't match the actual map source in the article. This "Did you know" was outright supported by the page and wrong according to the data present in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri, JohnBlackburne, Totodu74, Cwmhiraeth: Hey Chris. The source says under "Key facts" on the left hand side of the page: "Distribution size (breeding/resident) 376,000 km²", so I take it you simply missed it when looking. Whether it is poor information is another issue. The map distribution shown, and from which I assume the sq.k. area information is a reflection of, is near identical to that shown on the map provided by IUCN of its range (though this may be a circular observation since IUCN cites BirdLife as one source of its information, though it cites others as well). But Harrap's information is as of 1996 whereas these two are as of later dates. So I guess my question is, what makes you so sure information from Harrap (who is certainly a reliable source), should be viewed as the last word – enough to remove information that is verifiable to Birdlife International and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (which are certainly also reliable sources), with edit summaries stating that it is not at all a close call? You may very well be right, but I want to understand your rationale.

Here's another issue. I have no idea of the sq.k. area shown on the Harrap-derived map. I couldn't even hazard a guess, though it appears to me to be zoomed out from the other maps. Are you sure it's a significantly smaller area? More critically, this article was translated from the French featured article and the map was drawn by its main contributor. I am not sure at this point if the map comes from him looking at the places Harrap textually provides as places where the bird was observed, and drew it as he saw fit, or whether he redrew a pre-existing map. Certainly the pages from Harrap (which I am viewing right now) have no map image shown (see for yourself). I have no idea how a map of a species' range is supposed to be drawn and whether there are international conventions on how you draw the areas to show the extent of a bird's range (and whether that was followed). Certainly, if this is so, between a map drawn by a Wikipedian, versus those drawn by reliable sources, the former is the runt of that litter. I've pinged him.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. The actual text listed does not even support the map from which it and Birdlife denotes. I think its a bit of a misuse of range (as I am seeing it) to label the size so large. You have localities that have them, but ultimately the range provided has one bird per 25 square km and large portions of the area unable to support them. I am ever more curious as to why this conclusion was reached and why the key information goes back over 80 years. Many records are singular and some are questionable, let alone backing residency in the area. For an area larger than the whole of Germany to be the "range" of the rare and highly localized species seems to be an obvious nonsensical statement. And the right side didn't load for me when I viewed the Birdlife site, weird. I did a ctrl-f for the measurement since I was in disbelief it would be missed otherwise and I saw the map and figured it was the basis of the area claim. An error on my part in this case, but the range issue has become even more pronounced I think. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beautiful nuthatch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I propose to take on this review. My first impression is good and I will make a detailed study of the article shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

First reading

• "The bright blue color of its plumage invites a comparison to the blue nuthatch (S. azurea), or other blue-tinted nuthatch species such as the velvet-fronted nuthatch (S. frontalis), yellow-billed nuthatch (S. solangiae) and the sulphur-billed nuthatch (S. oenochlamys), but its distribution centered in the eastern Himalayas, and the unique patterns of the plumage, argues against the assumption" - I think this is original research as it does not seem to be mentioned in the source given.

• I had the wrong page number, 172 rather than 173 (see RELATIONSHIPS section). I'm not sure from this that your note results from my mistake, or that you did see this text, but think it went too far in specifying particular other blue nuthatches (S. solangiae, S. frontalis & S. oenochlamys), where Harrap only refers to blue nuthatches, without specifying?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything about "inviting comparison" in the source. You could instead go along the lines of "It is unlikely to be confused with .... because they do not share the same range." giving citations for the range of each comparitor (if that's the right word!). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I don't want to be difficult "reviewee" and will change it to something if you require, but I don't understand. To my mind the source's: "The lustrous blue coloring may hint at an affinity with..." is really very directly synonymous with my: "The bright blue color of its plumage invites a comparison to..." (maybe I should have said "may invite"), but the point is, to my ear it's far more synonymous than "It is unlikely to be confused with..."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to be a difficult reviewer, but we seem to be talking at cross purposes. When I look at the citation now I see a different source from the one I saw before, and neither of them used the phrase you quote "The lustrous blue coloring may hint at an affinity with". I daresay we'll get to the bottom of it yet! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Ha! Okay, this is all me. First I had the wrong page number (172) in the article. Then, when I switched it to the correct page number in the article (173), I wrote above (though with the correct link), exactly backwards, "172 rather than 173 (see RELATIONSHIPS section)". It is page 173 (rather than 172) and it is the Relationships section, which the very last section in the source before REFERENCES.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That's sorted then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The upper parts are generally orange-cinnamon" - Are you talking about the underparts here?

• Good catch! Fixed.

• Is any information available on the incubation period, whether both parents incubate and feed the young, and how long it takes the chicks to fledge?

• I found and added a source that the parent share equally in incubating and nest building. I couldn't find anything on incubation period or how long to fledge unfortunately. Harrap says specifically that breeding details are lacking.

• Other than that, I find very little to comment on or criticise in the article. The prose is admirable and the lead concisely summarises the body of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking this on Cwmhiraeth and the kind words. My responses are interlineated above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

GA criteria

• The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
• The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
• The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
• The article is neutral.
• The article is stable.
• The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

• Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)