Talk:Black-throated blue warbler

Adding a Behaviour and Ecology Section

Hello, I am working on black-throated blue warbler as part of my class project. I added a "Behaviour and Ecology" section which is further broken down into "breeding", "sexual selection" and "extra-pair mating". I reorganized a paragraph on foraging previously in the introduction under a new subsection "feeding". I would like to hear about any feedback or suggestion regarding my editing. Thank you! --Tianyi Cai (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For the peer review, I just edited the article to clear up some inconsistencies with the use of plural/singular and also for capitalization. I also made some minor grammar and style edits. I also moved some of the leader to a Description section to keep it consistence with other bird articles. WolfyFTW (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For my peer review, I changed around the headings and reorganized the order at which some of the facts are presented so that things flow a little better. I also changed "behaviour and ecology" to "behavior". I also made a couple minor edits in regard to grammar and added a couple of hyperlinks. Overall, a very informative article! Great job! Katheefwah (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, nice article. There wasn't much I could find, except changing a few grammatical issues and adding some commas for better flow. I changed some more subject-verb plural/singular inconsistencies that WolfyFTW mentioned earlier. I also corrected some typos such as "fertility risky period" --> "fertility risk period." Njoymusic2 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there; I specialize in zoological articles, so I thought I'd stop by and see how our featured bird article looks. I'm excited to see the WEP is embracing the opportunity to work with wildlife articles!

Looks like you've got some very appropriate references; we always expect primary references in fauna articles. However, particularly toward the end of the article, the information presented seems a bit "journal quality"-- on Wikipedia, we try to eliminate scientific knowledge that the average reader wouldn't understand, or at least dumb it down so they can make sense of it. Of course, that doesn't mean it has to be high-school level, but it should be a level that you might expect a peer without a college education in biology to understand.

I'd like to point out the opportunity to utilize a new template I wrote several months ago, the {{birdbox}}. This is an informational template that shows measurements, and I think it would be appropriate to use here. You can see one in action at Himalayan Vulture, and a more complex one at Egyptian Vulture.

When working on an article for a taxon, it's a good idea to look for synonyms of the scientific name. There's one in the taxobox already, but it looks like Motacilla caerulescens hasn't been mentioned. I see it's actually a protonym, so there's likely a good story to go along with that. I suggest you see if you can learn the history of the scientific name here and then share it with us-- protonyms are usually worth writing about!

Good luck! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh-- and another thing-- Wikipedia isn't the place to write about hypotheses. I noticed some "is likely" here and there...whenever possible, we avoid writing things like that. It's not a major flaw, but it's good practice to leave out guesswork when writing on Wikipedia when possible. If you feel a need to write about a theory, be sure and give it a 360 view-- state what problems there might be with the theory and what other strong theories exist, if any. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bob the Wikipedian! Thank you for your comments! I am a college student taking a behavioral ecology class. My edition to this article is part of my school assignment. I am actually quite new to editing Wikipeida articles. Sounds like you are an experienced Wikipedian! I may need to consult you a lot! So far, I have mainly worked on the behavior section of this entry. I think I am going to add more non-behavioral materials that this article is lacking, such as taxonomy, habitat and distribution and threats/conservation. These are some common sections that I find in bird articles. However, I don't know whether it is appropriate to cite from fact sheets online, through websites like the Cornell Lab of Ornithology or arkive.org. These websites seem to be the only places where I can find general facts about the particular bird. About the various hypotheses, I don't really know what to do with them. Most of them are from what I've read in the journal articles. Usually they are guesses by the authors of those journal articles. I just reported the guesswork that I found reasonable. It might be difficult for me to find other strong alternative hypotheses to give a 360 view. I have seen in other Wikipedia articles where it may say something like "There is a hypothesis which states that...but more research is needed to test it." Can I address the hypotheses in this manner? Thank you!Tianyi Cai (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black-throated Blue Warbler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for Good Article status. I'll go through and copyedit as I go - please revert any changes I make which accidentally change the meaning. I will jot questions below (if you don't understand any wiki-jargon I use, just ask! :)): Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• You generally put the reference at the end of the text referenced. So is the last sentence of the second para of Taxonomy and Phylogeny section derived from footnote 4 too?

Yes, it is.

• Any information on its closest relatives within Setophaga? This could be added to the Taxonomy and Phylogeny section.

I don't know where to find this information. Is there a reliable and updated source that you would recommend?

I'll take a look and see what I can find. found something - cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, thank you! Tianyi Cai (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Think about wikilinking more obscure, specific or complex terms, such as "phylogenetic", "subspecies", "coniferous-deciduous woodlands", states, cities or geographical features. Can "eastern islands" be linked anywhere?

Thank you for pointing that out. I have added a couple of more links.Tianyi Cai (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Try to rewrite as singular where possible to avoid flipping between singular and plural. Like this

I believe they are all in singular form now!Tianyi Cai (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Fix the tags. See how you can do duplicate links to same ref?

Fixed. Tianyi Cai (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is especially significant as it is an open-nesting species - can you add why?

Fixed. Tianyi Cai (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• More tags (sorry, should have tagged them before...)

Fixed now. Tianyi Cai (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, now to look at the prose and some source checking. Will update soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• The left testicle is most often times larger in size than the right one, - a number missing....

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?: (see comments at end)

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - some of the sources could do with wording a little more distant from the sourcing, which I did, and be careful that wording doesn't synthesise ideas not in sourcing, but other sources I spot-checked looked ok. Furthermore, some sources in the commented-out further reading section are worth exploring if this article were to be improved for FAC, but overall it qualifies for GA status now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Population both declining and increasing?

The article states in the introductory paragraph that the species is declining, but in the Status and Threats section, it states that the numbers are increasing. The first statements has no direct reference. The second is referenced to BirdLife/IUCN. Suggest that the first statement be removed in favour of the second, referenced statement. Stongey (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)