Talk:Iago sparrow/GA1
Latest comment: 10 years ago by J Milburn in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks interesting- happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Iago sparrow is listed on the Rufous sparrow disambiguation page, which, according to this article, may be incorrect.
- No, it used to be considered (the nominate) subspecies of the "Rufous Sparrow" —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps consider removing it from the dab page? J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't agree, as if people were looking for the Rufous Sparrow of the Cape Verde, that would be this species. —innotata 01:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll defer to you here! J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't agree, as if people were looking for the Rufous Sparrow of the Cape Verde, that would be this species. —innotata 01:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps consider removing it from the dab page? J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, it used to be considered (the nominate) subspecies of the "Rufous Sparrow" —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Could you double-check the spelling of the synonyms in the taxobox?
- They're correct. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- The taxobox lists Gould's name as Pyrgita jagoensis, while the article body says it was Pyrgita iagoensis. Or did Gould describe two species? J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't notice; Gould used iagoensis. —innotata 01:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- The taxobox lists Gould's name as Pyrgita jagoensis, while the article body says it was Pyrgita iagoensis. Or did Gould describe two species? J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- They're correct. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- "species Passer brancoensis in 1883,[2][11] which was recognised as a subspecies by W. R. P. Bourne" Presumably he called the subspecies Passer iagoensis brancoensis? Either way, it would be good to specify.
- I'd really like a distribution map, if possible! If possible, a map which shows both the location of Cape Verde in the world, and the distribution of the birds across the archipelago.
- I plan on making one; it isn't needed for GA but I'll try making one soon. —innotata 15:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll not hold up the nomination, but it would certainly be good to see! J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I plan on making one; it isn't needed for GA but I'll try making one soon. —innotata 15:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- You write in the lead that "The Iago sparrow occurs in most habitats on available in its range, such as lava plains, rocky hills, and gorges, though the house sparrow and Spanish sparrow restrict its presence in richer cultivated areas and denser settled areas." However, in the article body, you write "The Iago sparrow is found commonly in a variety of habitats, including flat lava plains, coastal cliffs, gorges, and the edges of farmland, at altitudes of up to 1,200 metres (3,900 ft). It also occurs in urban areas and gardens, where it may overlap with the house sparrow, but usually not with the Spanish sparrow. The Spanish sparrow occurs in richer cultivated land with larger trees and villages, and Iago sparrow in more arid cultivated land with smaller trees.[16]" These seem to be different claims.
- Where's the contradiction? —innotata 15:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not making a claim about contradiction- The lead should reflect what is said (and sourced) in the article body. The lead says that "the house sparrow and Spanish sparrow restrict its presence in richer cultivated areas and denser settled areas". The article body says "It also occurs in urban areas and gardens", but nothing about "denser settled areas" which is mentioned in the lead. The body also says that "it may overlap with the house sparrow...", while the lead suggests that competition with the house sparrow restricts its range, "...but usually not with the Spanish sparrow", but this does not logically imply that the Spanish sparrow restricts its presence, which is what the lead says. The same with the cultivation point- sourced, in the article body, is the claim that "The Spanish sparrow occurs in richer cultivated land with larger trees and villages, and Iago sparrow in more arid cultivated land with smaller trees." This does not logically entail that "though the house sparrow and Spanish sparrow restrict its presence in richer cultivated areas". J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think I've fixed this… —innotata 18:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not making a claim about contradiction- The lead should reflect what is said (and sourced) in the article body. The lead says that "the house sparrow and Spanish sparrow restrict its presence in richer cultivated areas and denser settled areas". The article body says "It also occurs in urban areas and gardens", but nothing about "denser settled areas" which is mentioned in the lead. The body also says that "it may overlap with the house sparrow...", while the lead suggests that competition with the house sparrow restricts its range, "...but usually not with the Spanish sparrow", but this does not logically imply that the Spanish sparrow restricts its presence, which is what the lead says. The same with the cultivation point- sourced, in the article body, is the claim that "The Spanish sparrow occurs in richer cultivated land with larger trees and villages, and Iago sparrow in more arid cultivated land with smaller trees." This does not logically entail that "though the house sparrow and Spanish sparrow restrict its presence in richer cultivated areas". J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Where's the contradiction? —innotata 15:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think a note about the conservation status would be a good addition to the end of the lead.
- As File:Passer iagoensis Sal.jpg is in the behaviour section, perhaps note in the caption what she's doing?
- Four quick questions (if there's no information available, that's OK!):
- What do the eggs look like?
- Haven't found information; modern sources omit this information, and its eggs weren't in a collection like the British Museum's around 1900. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- How long do they live?
- Unknown. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Does the species have any cultural significance?
- Maybe, never found anything written about it though. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- What does "iagoensis" mean? What does "Iago" mean?
- From the island of Santiago, id est St. Iago. —innotata 01:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- What do the eggs look like?
- Some comments on sourcing. Not essential for GAC, but I thought it may be helpful for improving the article:
- What kind of publication is the González source? Is it just a poster presentation?
- Yeah, it got reprinted or written up in a journal, but the poster has all the info. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I won't push it for GAC, but, especially if you're aiming at FAC, it may be best to cite the journal article rather than the poster. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it got reprinted or written up in a journal, but the poster has all the info. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- The same with Actes de la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux. Is there any more information for this citation- author? Page number? Am I right this is an academic journal?
- I'm not sure there's an author for this article, it's just a listing of new species (there is an authority for the species description, Oustalet, but until recently articles describing new species didn't need the authority to be an author). There's enough information in the citation as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't be worth it to find the page numbers. It's an academic journal, even though it's one from the 1880s. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ibis or The Ibis?
- They dropped the The at some point. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not blown away by the importance of the Dutch case (and the sources aren't perfect). Perhaps it could be rephrased as simply something like "Vagrants have been seen outside of Cape Verde, having flown on to passing ships." This would also avoid the short paragraph.
- It's probably the only case of vagrancy, and the sources are good, one's from the news section of a peer-reviewed journal, not peer-reviewed but under editorial scrutiny. And, it has photos of the whole phenomenon. —innotata 15:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Check the Alexander source- is the author's name Boyd Alexander, or Alexander Boyd? Also, what's going on with the issue number?
- It's Boyd Alexander; the article is from series 7, volume 4, and the issue number isn't given in the citation. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Inconsistency concerning reference locations.
- Not sure what you're referring to. —innotata 15:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry- consistency concerning the way you cite book publisher locations. Some aren't included, one has town, county and country/state, some are just towns, one has town/state. Picky, and certainly not necessary at GAC, but it's the kind of thing that holds up FAC nominations all the time! J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think I'm doing it the standard Wikipedia way: the American town needs disambiguation by state, and there are multiple Caltons, so the county needs to be specified. —innotata 18:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's not a standard Wikipedia way, so far as I'm aware- as long as there's internal consistency, just about anything goes. That said, this stuff isn't essential for GAC, so I'll not push it! J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think I'm doing it the standard Wikipedia way: the American town needs disambiguation by state, and there are multiple Caltons, so the county needs to be specified. —innotata 18:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry- consistency concerning the way you cite book publisher locations. Some aren't included, one has town, county and country/state, some are just towns, one has town/state. Picky, and certainly not necessary at GAC, but it's the kind of thing that holds up FAC nominations all the time! J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're referring to. —innotata 15:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- What kind of publication is the González source? Is it just a poster presentation?
Overall, a really nice little article, definitely worthy of GA status once some fixes have been made. I made a few edits- please double-check them. J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing the review, I've answered a few of your comments and I'll address the rest later today/tomorrow. —innotata 16:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, you seem to be mostly done now- I'll take another look through the article in the coming days. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm so close to promoting, but I'm still a little worried by this "restricts the range" claim. The sourced claim in the article is that "It also occurs in settled areas and gardens, where it may overlap with the house sparrow, but usually not with the Spanish sparrow. The Spanish sparrow occurs in richer cultivated land with larger trees and villages, and Iago sparrow in more arid cultivated land with smaller trees. In settlements where both the house sparrow and Iago sparrow occur, house sparrows tend to occupy denser areas while Iago sparrows are found around trees and parks." The subtly different claim in the lead is that "the house sparrow and Spanish sparrow restrict its presence in richer cultivated areas and settlements". These are clearly different claims- A not overlapping with B is not the same as B restricting the range of A. Could you double-check your source and make sure all three say the same thing? J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Everything I've written is based on what Summers-Smith says; I've rewritten it to make it simpler and clearer, I think. —innotata 14:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Innotata, my apologies for the delay. I've made a final adjustment to the lead, and I'm now happy to promote. This is a great little article and makes a solid GA- great work, and I look forward to seeing more of your articles in the future. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)