Talk:Chestnut sparrow/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hartlaub

if you want to add the J.Orn. Hartlaub ref from 1880 its volume 28 no.150 p.211,325 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that's a good idea. Summers-Smith may have the title of the paper. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a ref to Hartlaub, and I got to see the first page of the paper at the J. f. Orn. website. You got the issue number wrong: it was issue 2. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarification

• What are "soft grass seeds"? Snowman (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not hard ones: would softer be better? This is what the source says. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of the types of seeds. What it the difference between these soft seeds for the young and the ordinary (harder) seeds that the adults usually eat. Snowman (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No examples are given by Payne. It is unlikely I'll be able to find any. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Darfur through Uganda and Kenya to north-central Tanzania, and in the southwest and Rift Valley of Ethiopia." Could all the countries of its range be included. The list is "Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda" on IUCN, but they are not always accurate, I think. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed this. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• "typical messy sparrow affairs" - assumes prior knowledge. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Messy affairs, like most sparrow nests"? comparison is necessary, to explain confusion over nests. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I think that "affairs" is not a good word choice here. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can think of something better, do use it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is I do not know what you mean by "messy affairs". Anyway I have swapped it for "structures" at present. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• What is "Messy"? Does it mean untidy, or covered with bird poo and other debris? Surely they must maintain some hygiene or the eggs would get infected or wet. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Untidy is also used in my sources, so I'll use it instead. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced it with untidy. Snowman (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The Chestnut Sparrow, as a nest parasite, may be evolving towards the sort of brood parasitism seen in some cuckoos." I see it has three references, but it seems to come out of the blue, and I think that this needs to be explained much better. The jump from a nest parasite to a brood parasite, seems to me to be quite a big jump - what evidence is there that this evolutionary step is being made in the sparrows. Evolution is almost entirely logical, so the narration here should be logical, I think. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you want? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Some more details or evidence are needed I think. From what information is it concluded that the evolution is happening. Snowman (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added what Payne's abstract says, with a quote. The BioScience citation should be enough to confirm that this hypothesis is current. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote in the article appears to be sourced from the Payne article. I am not yet found anything like the story in the quote in Darwin's book, but I have found pages about the instincts of cuckoos here. I have not found any notion that "Nest parasitism is generally thought to have been a stage in the evolutionary development of brood parasitism", but I might have missed it despite several searches through Darwin's book "Origin of the Species". I have found a different hypotheses in Dawin's book that explains a hypotheses about the behaviour of an American Cuckoo being selected and transformed to the behaviour like that of the European Cuckoo, and this has got nothing to do with birds incubating their own eggs in other birds nests like the Chestnut Sparrows do. If it came to a preference between conflicting references, I guess that most would choose Darwin's famous book, the most important biological text ever written, and not the 1969 primary paper. Snowman (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what Payne's abstract says. Maybe Payne cited the wrong book or edition by Darwin. (I saw your addition–edit conflict) I think I'll mention another book, actually on the subject so certain to include this, cited by Payne. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have access to the full 1969 Payne's paper you will be able to check how he phrases his comments about Darwin work, which is all on-line now, so anything quoted about Darwin can be sourced directly. Are you restricted to only the Payne's abstract, like I am? Snowman (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have full access to Payne's paper. (I cited every page!) There is no cit in the discussion to Darwin, Payne probably thought the cit in the abstract was enough. I suspect you just missed it in the Origin, but at any rate I've rewritten the sentence, to be sure. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I did a digital search through he entire book looking for "cuckoo". I could have missed something, but why would Darwin not have cross references in the hypothesis that I found. Snowman (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Nest parasitism is generally thought to have been a stage in the evolutionary development of brood parasitism"; so why did Darwin have an alternative hypothesis? Snowman (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've lost track of this matter. Are we still referring to the same thing? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm getting it. First, though I think that the Darwin matter is fairly unimportant, it is worth noting that a search for "cuckoo" would not be sufficient. What is Darwin's alternative hypothesis? At any rate the matter of evolution of brood parasitism is dealt with in detail in Cuckoos, Cowbirds and other cheats, but no mention of the Chestnut Sparrow is made, so—well, see the article as it is now. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I does not matter how many references I have missed, the point is that I have found a hypothesis by Darwin that provides a different explanation for the evolution of Cuckoos to what is said in the article. Darwin's ideas do matter and he is considered to be a genius. You have given three references for this one-liner, so I do not understand why it is not an expansive portion of the article. I would go as far as to say that the article covers Chestnut Sparrow evolution badly, and, if it is going to be included, then a more thorough account of the evolution of this bird is needed. I am not inspired with confidence about your mix-up over the Darwin reference, and I am puzzled why you have not been able to find anything at all in Darwin's book to support the line that it was an in-line citation for. It would be helpful if you found something in any of Darwin's books that is consistent with how Payne was quoting Darwin. I am aware that the reference from Darwin that I have found does not fit in with the one-liner. I do not know why you dropped the Darwin reference, but you may have left yourself open to criticism from sceptics who might say that you dropped it because it did not backup a certain hypothesis and that now the article does not express an appropriate balance of opinions. The article quotes a fact about Chestnut Sparrow evolution and incompletely explains the reasoning behind it in my opinion. If evolution is going to be included in the article, I think it would be better if evolution was discussed more to explain why Darwin had a different theory and also to explain the rational of the authors of your references. We seem to be going around in circles and I am saying similar to what I was saying at the top of this thread. In summery I think a one-liner is inadequate to cover the evolution of Chestnut Weavers (should have said Chestnut Sparrows). Snowman (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The amount of sources I have access to is a little limited (I can't view anything but the first page of the BioScience paper, which I would probably need in order to expand this further), I don't see how Darwin's hypothesis has anything to do with this or conflicts with this, and I'm not going to read the whole Origin and Darwin's other books just to find whether Darwin said anything further. Chestnut Sparrows are not going to evolve into cuckoos no matter what happens, and I don't see what Chestnut Weavers have to do with this at all. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if your reply advances the discussion or not. I accidentally wrote "Chestnut Weavers", when I meant "Chestnut Sparrows" and I have put a strike above to indicate this typographical error. The article mentions the evolution of brood parasites, so the evolution of cuckoos is relevant. If the sparrow did evolve brood parasitism, I know that it would never become one of the Cuculidae, and it would always have evolutionary roots in the sparrow family. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you reconsider this matter in light of the current version: I think I've dealt with most of your issues, except your request for the section to be extended. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• "sesquimorphic"; jargon. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• That is one way of fixing it. Snowman (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't necessary, though it may be for a discussion of evolution at Passer. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to learn more about this word. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, it is a compound, "sesqui-" "-morphic". —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

viz, It is a counterpart to "monomorphic" and "dimorphic". —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• "genes which are not actively used and which may thus more accurately portray the actual relationships of species". Sure junk DNA has a evolutionary history, but is it really more accurate than the other DNA to represent relationships of species. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is according to the source. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this is an idiosyncrasy of the primary paper or an superseded hypothesis. It is a 2001 paper, and DNA is the sort of area which is not standing still. I think that a more up to date reference for this "hot topic" is needed. If the 2001 reference is all you have got, then I would leave it out. Snowman (talk)

I'll see what I can find first. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• "sister group"; jargon. Snowman (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have linked it and/or used closest relatives. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed this. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• "gregarious": probably worth mentioning flock sizes. Snowman (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably little data again. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a common bird. Snowman (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the IUCN (they say the same for two certainly scarce sparrow species). Summers-Smith doesn't give any info, except that they actually do occur outside flocks. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Is flocking partly for safety in numbers? Is predation from hawks less likely when they are in a flock? Snowman (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No answer in my sources. I'm guessing it is more deep-rooted behaviour. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• "1 centimetre (0.39 in), and 1.5 centimetres (0.59 in) respectively.": using the convert can produce unexpected rendering. I think it is possible to specify how many decimal places are needed. Snowman (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have adjusted the precision parameter to give only one decimal place. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do not forget alt text for the images. Snowman (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any alt text at all. Can you add something? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Snowman (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll see about these last two. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Eggs - colour and size if known. Snowman (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember how little known this species is. This probably is recorded—if at all–only in some obscure book or journal not available to me. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I would enquire. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've included nearly everything known about this species. (Except the breeding season, for reasons given.) —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• "At Robert Payne's study locality": which was where? Snowman (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It says: near Lake Magadi, Kenya. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed that because it was in the first paragraph. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Chestnut Sparrows are gregarious, and they frequently associate with queleas and other weavers.": this seems to suggest that sparrows congregate with the other species in friendly groups, but later in the article it seems that the sparrows are continuously hostile to the weavers, so there seems to be to be an internal contradiction about behaviour towards weavers. Snowman (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is feeding behaviour and breeding behaviour. I don't think Chestnut Sparrows parasitise queleas and the other birds they flock with. I don't think social-weavers are smart enough to realise these birds are the same ones that steal their nests when they flock with them—if they do, as spp are not given in detail. I don't see any contradiction. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. There are times when Chestnut Sparrows are happy to flock with weavers and other times when the sparrows want the weavers to go away. Are there any triggers for these two different types of behaviour? ie place, situation, time, or season orientated. The article leaves the reader in some doubts and semi-confusion about what is happening and when, so the reader is left guessing, puzzled, or constructing a likely hypothesis. Snowman (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I see little contradiction, and will not be able to construct an explaination. In sum Chestnut Sparrows and weavers flock together comfortably, except when the sparrows want the weavers' nests.

• "Tail, bill, and tarsus lengths are are about 4 cm (1.6 in), 1 cm (0.4 in), and 1.5 cm (0.6 in) respectively." It is unsaid in the article, but I assume these measurements are for both male and female. It reads a bit clunky to me after wing lengths given separately for male and female. I might have expected the females to have all these dimensions smaller than the male. The article leaves the reader guessing. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• "At 11.5 cm (4.5 in) in length, the Chestnut Sparrow ..."; Is the female smaller than the male? It has got smaller wings, so why has it not got a smaller length. The article leaves the reader guessing. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No figures in Clement, no major difference and small sample size in Summers-Smith. (Many of Summers-Smith's measurements are inaccurate.) —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it seems odd to list the length and various other parameters in a general fits-all format and give wing sizes for males and females separately without explanation why. If it is because of reduced statistical power of small samples, then explaining this (or what ever reasons there are) will reduce the number of riddles for the reader to puzzle over. Snowman (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate. Clement, which I think I cited on this gives all figures except length and wing length as approximate. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If length and wing length are accurately measured, why is there no mention of separate lengths in males and females, but there are separate lengths and wing lengths for females and males. I think there is still a puzzle here. Snowman (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the only people who'd know about this one would be J. D. Summers-Smith and Peter Clement. I suppose it is a little puzzling. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer the first question, body length is always approximate as there is no easy accurate repeatable measure of overall length. I would presume that in any sample of overall length the difference between the males and females would be smaller than the error that creeps in trying to measure them. They are rather close. Moreover, birds may be allometric, so that the males might have slightly longer wings than the females but be overall similar in size. At the end of the day you are limited to what the writers decided to present and how they chose to present it. We can speculate here as to why there are these disparities in the data they show us, but we shouldn't speculate in the article itself. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't give me the slightest clue as to what to do. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There isn't anything you can do but present the data you have. I'm just explaining why there would be these discrepencies. Incidentally, my HBW 14 arrived today. It gives a length range for this species (10.5-11.5 cm) a weight range (12-17 g) and moe detailed descriptions of the calls. I'll add them after work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Range map. Snowman (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to note. I don't have Photoshop, myself, though, so somebody else will have to find a source and make a map. I will be able to make comments on a map. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I generally do not make maps. There is GIMP, a free download pack, that you can use to make maps with. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that with GIMP. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Payne proposed that the Chestnut Sparrow was an obligate nest parasite"; Was Payne wrong? - the article goes on to say that sparrows can make their own nests. I think that the longish section on breeding may need reorganising or at least perhaps the former beliefs could be separated out in a separate paragraph or section. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand quite what you're getting at. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from somewhat disorganised paragraphs in the "Breeding" section, there is a simple problem: How can A and B both be correct?

A = Payne says that the Chestnut Sparrow is an obligate nest parasite (always has to be a nest parasite)

B = The article goes on to say that Chestnut Sparrows make their own dome-shaped untidy nests. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It says that Payne suggested, not "said". —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, I think it should say that he "inaccurately suggested ..." or it should delete his superseded concept. Also, I think that the former ideas should be separated from current thinking for clarity. Snowman (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have made some amendments. It is a bit more logical now, but I think it could do with a good copy edit to unscramble the section somewhat. Sometimes editors that are new to a page can copy edit and work over the problem areas better than the editors that have been working on an article. Snowman (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree with your last comment. I probably ought to note that I try to avoid phrasings like "inaccurately suggested" as much as possible, since this belittles things like Payne's ideas. I also do not like to split articles into huge numbers of little subsections (Jimfbleak takes a more extreme attitude to this); and I feel both these changes would take away from its quality. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• What are the predators of the sparrow? - snakes in trees, hawks, cats. Snowman (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not in my sources. Again, this bird is mostly found in difficult to access parts of Africa, so don't expect as much as with European or American birds. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Little is recorded of its voice"; ambiguous. Does this mean recorded in literature or sound recordings of the calls and songs? Snowman (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Following my sources again. Most likely neither. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your reply is a bit of a riddle, and does not advance the discussion much. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more detailed version: I paraphrased my sources, and I don't expect anything was recorded in literature or sound recordings at the time, or at least was not known to Summers-Smith. Sabine's Sunbird says that the HBW has a more detailed description of its voice. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Recorded could mean either. The word is ambiguous in this context, but most people will be satisfied that it refers to both. I have added some more info from my sources. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've redone the voice section to reflect this better,. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Description. There is no mention of the colour of the irises, beak, legs, and any differences in these parts between male, female, and juvenile. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can add this, but not anything about the irises. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Or anything about the legs of birds besides non-breeding males. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Those sparrows that live near human settlements: Do the local people put scraps out especially for the sparrows and other birds? Do the local people make nest-boxes for sparrows? Would sparrows nest in a nest-box, if it was provided for them? Snowman (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is Africa. Nothing about this except that Chestnut Sparrows feed at bird feeders at game reserves etc. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• "granivorous"; jargon in introduction. Snowman (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the sort of word that does not seem like jargon to me. It is a compound word, and I have always thought that most people know such elements as "grani-" and "-ivorous". I'll change it, but only because it is unnecessary. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The introduction should be the easiest part to read. I known what it meant, but to me it is an obviously out-of-place in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• "mandible"; its meaning in human anatomy is well understood (and you have wikilinked mandible, which is mostly about human anatomy), but I think that its use in ornithology is jargon. Can you make it clear what a birds mandible is? Snowman (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? If you understand what the mandible is on a human surely you know what it is on the bird. Or at least can take a reasonably educated guess. I don't think the term is jargon. (Neither do I find granivorous jargon either). Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it is obvious that "granivorous" is jargon. It is a word I have never specifically heard and one I had to guess what it meant. Snowman (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can guess where the birds mandible is. Despite this, I would like this clarified in the article for all readers. To me the dusky areas that I have seen on one image of the female's beak on the internet do not exactly correspond with the description in the article. At the present time I am not sure if the image I saw was not detailed enough to show the dusky areas well, or the description in the article is not exactly correct. I would like to see a description that is clearer without "jargon" for clarification, at least on the talk page initially Snowman (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to find a citation to change it. It says "on the cutting edge of the mandible", same as in Clement. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that is clear for most readers of the wiki, and I guess they would not know exactly where the dusky areas are from the current text in the article. I think that the article should be in easier to understand language. Snowman (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel I can improve it while sticking to the info in my sources. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have explained it better by translating the jargon and adding a short phrase in round brackets to explain the exact meaning of the jargon. Snowman (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is this article B-class, and ready for GA review? I suppose the heading needs expansion, but I can't think of much to add to it. A final copyedit would also be good; I've gone through it, but I haven't noticed much. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is ready - it has a very thorough picking over, and just about anything that can be said about this species has now been said. I know I promised a map - I will get to it but I need a different mouse to the one I am using at the moment - trackballs don't cut it for the tricky range of this species. It should pass GA without the map though. Nominate away. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, quick question. Do your sources have anything to say on the division of labour with reagrds to incubation and chick feeding? HBw sas nothing on incubation (although it does note that in captivity the incubation period is 18-19 days), and that the chicks are "possibly fed by the female alone". I will add that, but was wondering if you had anything on who incubates? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the presumed source for the statement in the HBW: "At another nest on 14 June a female sparrow fed three naked young; no male approached the nest in two hours of observation." (Payne 1969). Nothing on incubation except clutch size, already added, since Payne and colleagues were away from their study place from the period of courtship to that of chick feeding. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So they've been kept in captivity, eh? Maybe this could bring up some more things. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested review

A quick look doesn't show too many problems.

• The lead is too short, and should probably have at least two paragraphs for a GA.
• It would be nice if there was more info for behaviour, but that might not be possible.
• Do you have any weights for this species?
• A range map might be nice.
• Oh, and to my mind citing pages within a journal article is overkill (unless the article is over 40 pages or something).
• Biggest problem for me is in the breeding section. "Nest parasitism is generally thought to have been a stage in the evolutionary development of brood parasitism",[17][18] and the Chestnut Sparrow may be evolving towards the sort of brood parasitism seen in many cuckoos and cowbirds.[4][15][19]. First of all it reads like that is the most important route, when the route of non-obligate nest parasites is another route (and more likely one in my mind). The second ref, Davies book on states (on page 243) "if we do find precursors of parasitic behaviour in nesting relatives of the parasitic species, this does not imply that they are now evolving towards a parasitic way of life". I think the text needs to make it clear that this is one potential route and that this is both highly speculative an at best only a possibility, not a certainty. I'd also be advise against including that nugget inside the lead, instead deal with more solid facts about what it is actually doing now, not what it might do in the future. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on my comments - I have HBW 14 now, will add the weights and try and make a ange map after work. Very little info on the general behaviour of the species in the account, this article is more in depth than what they have. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted without much notice from others above, I have included all biometrics and information on behaviour except breeding season, since this would not be of much use for reasons given above and in the article. I'll try to cut down on the "speculation", though I should note that Summers-Smith makes much of it, but refers readers to Payne papers I can't access on the details. I don't see why citing pages really is overkill. Some contributors always do this. (edit conflict) Excellent. Please do add this, as I won't be able to find this information very easily. (I could view reference copies of the HBW at a university library). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - speculation is okay as long as you are a) presenting the erudite speculation of others (ei scientists) and b) make sure it is presented as such, as in make it very clear that it is speculation. The best way to do that is to link the speculation with a speculator, strongly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case, the speculation is linked with all those who have paid much attention to this species since Payne's 1969 paper, but especially Payne himself. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've improved the wording: is it satisfactory yet? And does this article merit b-class? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the information and citations from the HBW, but would you mind bringing the citation in line with the others? I've just changed it to {{Cite book}}, rather than {{Citation}}, and it would be good to make it a {{Harvnb}}/inline citation like all the other citations of extensive books not only in this article, but also in sparrow articles as a whole. It is quite unacceptable for a GA or any artivle, say some to be so inconsistent. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• ^@*% templates. Switch to templates they say. It will make everything consistent they say. Then they go and create two different templates. Gah. Fine, I'll sort it out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, and added the sound information. Please feel free to improve the wording, I'm not uite sure how to incorporate renderings of calls into text. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've improved the wording. I don't see what is so bad about citation templates. With your average Wikipedia editor, you get a mess without them—I could name plenty of pages in awful condition until I added templates. Note that the addition of page numbers is preferred with the Harvard templates. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Before you started editing I had a number of editors nagging me to use them. I find them cumbersome and unintuitive, and managed to raise a number of articles to FA status without them. I eventually relented when I added a citation button to my toolbar, making them at least easy to do, but I still don't particularly like them. I certainly don't like the fact that there are now apparently rival standards. Ho hum. I'm not particularly fond of page numbers for books either (books have indexes, sheeple!) but that is an angry old man rant for another time. ;) Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two citation template systems, and several reference template systems—Harvard, inline/Harvard, "Rp", and so on. The cite book, cite journal, cite conference, and so on templates are one of the two systems, being more detailed than plain citation templates, which is why they are more commonly used now. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally vs Only

[1] That doesn't really make sense. They are either sometimes away from a flock or only away from a flock. Both "occasionally" and "only" don't make sense together. --ZooFari 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an idiom: it is used in the monograph I use as a source, in great literature, and in children's books, so of course I take this phrase for granted. What can possibly be wrong? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is redundant. "Sparrows are usually small birds" as opposed to "Sparrows are almost usually small birds". --ZooFari 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What phrasing do you suggest? If you can think of something undoubtedly better do use it. I also can not understand why you used the example of "Sparrows are almost usually small birds": the two are not really comparable. --—innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Innotata, the word "only" is completely redundant. If these sparrows stay out of flocks occasionally, why do you need "only"? It is hard for me to explain, you can leave this up to the reviewer. --ZooFari 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me as being an intensifier. "Sandbirds are occasionally seen in England" seems like a more common event than "Sanbirds are only occasionally seen in England". Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, new message) What can replace it? What matters is: I think this phrasing is fine (I have no questions as to it) and I can't think of anything that could replace it, but if anything better is thought up I'll be fine with its use. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well your phrasing makes it hard to understand whether they are usually found in flocks or never. If they are usually found in flocks, removing the "never" would be fine and won't change the meaning. --ZooFari 00:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They are usually found in flocks. There is no "never" and I don't see what this is about. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant "only". --ZooFari 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And if they are usually found in flocks, why does it say "and are only occasionally found away from flocks"? --ZooFari 00:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you are trying to point out. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't understand what you are trying to phrase in the article either. The article says they they are usually away from flocks but a few minutes ago you said they are usually in flocks... --ZooFari 01:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says thay are usually in flocks (gregarious) and occasionally away. Adding the "only" before "occasionally" simply intensifies the "occasionally". It is not an unusual usage. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, new message) Thanks. Now this finally has been explained. Should this be changed, ZooFari? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you say they are mostly in flocks but occasionally away, then no, I was wrong. If they are usually away, then it would still make no sense. --ZooFari 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)