Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Southern boobook/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2017 [1].

Southern boobook

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article got a thorough going-over at GAN and I think is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

Image review

  • Have to say, I'm having trouble figuring out from the legend which of the map colours is meant to be which - for example, which of the greens is pale and which is dark?
that was tricky....I will see what I can do - i.e. make the range map of one subspecies paler and eliminate the political boundaries. ok I made the pale green more unambiguously paler and removed the political colours, leaving all land not inhabited by this bird white. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... what is the colour covering most of Australia? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is the cream colour denoting the range of subspecies ocellata Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with Nikkimaria; I had an issue with the legend as well. Perhaps the legend could have things like █ to supplement the name of the colour? Umimmak (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
okay, I think I can come up with something in a few hours where I have a spell of time and can focus on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Umimmak

edit

I don't feel like I have enough experience to support or oppose. I have some initial notes and questions; feel free to do with as you please.

Lede, infobox, and Taxonomy

  • [Addendum: Infobox image: do you want to specify this is S. b. boobook, not any other subspecies? 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
added subspecies Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Addendum: How do you pronounce "boobook", this is an unfamiliar word to me, at least and I can think of at least three plausible pronunciations: /bubuk/, /bubʊk/, or /boʊboʊk/. And as a general note, maybe it isn't standard for ornithologists but all of these pronunciation spellings of the calls aren't super clear. For "mopoke", e.g., I could imagine it trying to represent a call like /moʊpoʊkeɪ/ or /mɑpoʊk/, but as the source also has "morepork", which presumably reflects a non-rhotic pronunciation, I guess it's something like /moʊpoʊk/. It might be helpful if prounciations of the English representations of the calls can be added in with reliable sources 03:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC).]
it's pronounced "boo" (as in a ghost says..) "book" (that which you read). Come to think of it I haven't seen a source for this....will look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noted my suggestion re the map colour above
  • How are the author citations for Ninox boobook and Strik boobook both Latham, 1801? Missing parentheses?
oops, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IUCN should be updated to reflect the new 2016 version, and should be cited as suggested in Template:IUCN
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Addendum: Perhaps the taxobox should also list the subspecies? Or at least mention how many there are. 03:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parentheses around subgenera should not be italicized.
got it...I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A local Aboriginal word" -- do we just not know which language? local to which area?
local to the Sydney area. See the next para. I am pondering how to reorder this added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this is now regarded as a synonym." The word "now" is unhelpful (MOS:CURRENT) -- say who synonymized it and when, or use the Template:As of to note it was in 2017 when you checked whichever database.
it was realised it was a synonym from early on. Took out "now" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "renaming S. boobook to Ieraglaux (Spiloglaux) bubuk." I'm confused, so he just randomly decided to invalidly emend the specific name?
aah the old days. there was more of this going on in the early days of taxonomy. If I can find an RS that explains I can add as a footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • S. maculatus all of a sudden gets mentioned like the reader should be familiar with it. I'm presuming this is some other species than than another synonym (like S. marmoratus), so wikilink?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And so your list of synonyms doesn't reflect all combinations which are synonymous, then, since you only have A. marmorata, not S. marmoratus? Which is standard?
good point. it isn't listed in the source for some reason... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More of "the native name", okay maybe we don't know which language but do we know where Dawes or Caley asked for the indiginous name? Like what you do later for Gould.
See above - I will look up and add something on this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dutch naturalist Gerlof Mees and evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr" makes it seem like Mayr is Dutch as well
added Mayr's nationality Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Addendum: Who transferred it Ninox was it Mees in 1964? 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
Blyth in 1849 was the first - added this now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • why did you italizice the *b* in "cytochrome b"? And that should probably be wikilinked.
I often saw it italicized..however our page does not have it such so de-italicized. And linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it kosher to just refer to a specific name by itself as you do for "leucopsis", "novaeseelandiae", and "connivens"?
possibly a tad informal...I will rectify tweaked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any secondary sources that talk about Wink et al.'s and Gwee et al.'s studies? How were they received by others?
Gwee's is really recent, but will likely see the addition and subtraction of subspecies. Winks helped confirm the split accepted by the IOC world birdlist (consensus bird taxonomy worldwide), though they cite Schodde there... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2017 study by Singapore-based biologist Chyi Yin Gwee and colleagues [...], In a 2017 paper, Gwee and colleagues" -- this makes it seem like they're not the same paper.
oops, removed 2nd intro. must have forgotten that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies

  • [Addendum: caption should be capitalized, and I personally think it should give credit to the illustrator, viz., John Gerrard Keulemans 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eleven subspecies are recognised by the IOC" Template:As of? This is esp important in case they change due to Gwee et al's recommendations. It also might be better to have more of an introduction here, say which subspecies have been suggested to be reclassified by Gwee et al., for instance.
have added version and date of publication. Am coy about speculating future additions and subtractions (which are almost inevitable) - they are listed in text anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Type localities of the subspecies?
damn there are alot of these... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: like I said I don't consider myself an expert in FA bird articles; I just wanted to raise the issue and see if excluding them was made for a reason. Maybe if not for the subspecies perhaps at least for the species as a whole? Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it for the species as a whole and ones (such as lurida and ocellata) where they don't come from an island (eg. The type specimen for Kangaroo Island is just listed as "Kangaroo Island" in the source...which makes it repetitive and not really informative Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is sometimes included in the nominate subspecies." -- are König et al. claiming this synonymy or merely reporting others have?
reporting others Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it is known to the local people as" again who are they? The peoples local to which area? Aboriginal Australians are not a homogenous group.
here it refers to the indigenous people of Rote Island. have changed "local" to "indigenous" - should I add "of Rote Island" here too? worried it might be a bit repetitive... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's a bit unclear...the source makes it seem like these are the names in two different languages, but right now the article reads as if they're two terms of a single language instead. Umimmak (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok, have added "of Rote Island" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was more getting at how the source says one word was used by the people in one part of Rote Island and the other by the people in another part, i.e., they're presumably different languages, not just synonyms of the same language. Even changing people to "peoples" might be clearer. Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in the localities - I can't assume anything about the language(s) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did S. fusca become N. b. fusca?
added some material. Not 100% sure that Mayr was the first to have it as a subspecies but his was a comprehensive review Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "than subspecies boobook" Is it okay to just have subspecific name insteas of N. b. boobook?
formalised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "collected by Kuhn in 1902 on Moa." Who's Kuhn? You only give his last name like we know who he is.
I meant to get back to that - I thought he was one of the notable scientists named Kuhn but he doesn't appear to be. So have modified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just assuming throughout that in the absence of providing a different basionym that these subspecies were all described explicitly as a subspecies of N. boobook.
  • "different to subspecies boobok" Is this standard in Australian English? "Different to" is often proscribed in formal American English, although I think it might be acceptable in British English I just saw this in academic Australian English so you're good with "different to" I guess 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
yup Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umimmak (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • [Addendum: "Roosting boobook" image -- is this a southern Boobook? Is the subspecies known? 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
subsp. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sex difference in size?
added - females often a little larger and heavier Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bill is black with a pale blue-grey base and cere" It's a bit weird to all of a sudden discuss cere in the midst of several sentences discussing color, especially since this is likely to be an unfamiliar term.
it is wikilinked, and is a part of the beak...? Not sure how to rephrase this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it might be useful to have photos illustrating differences with possibly confusable species?
problem is, we don't have any photos of Tasmanian boobook... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in mainly Eucalypt forest" why is Eucalypt capitalized?
a mistake. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact, it can adapt to any habitat as long as there are some trees present" -- this seems a bit strong... surely not every habitat?
erm...it is true. I have seen them twice in quite inner suburban Sydney Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are trees in the taiga as well, I'm reluctant to say they could adapt to that habitat. Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior

  • [Addendum: lowercase common name 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
Oops, hangover from pre 2014 case wars Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a shame there's apparently(?) no free audio. I wonder if it might be useful to bring up the sound file in external links within an "external media" template
  • "the second note generally lower than the first" clarify lower in pitch, not volume
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Birds give a harsher version of the call when mobbing intruders" wikilink mobbing
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one and twenty metres (3-70 ft)" Is there a reason you don't use the convert template? At the very least the hyphen should become an en-dash
ndashed now....didn't use template as didn't want to muck up prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, never seen that article before! Fascinating! Still, not convinced it's garden pathy but did change to "regurgitate" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which becomes quite smelly" The word "smelly" strikes me as being entirely too informal for an encyclopedia
hmm, I don't but happy to change to another simple word - "malodorous" strikes me as too long, "foul-smelling"..I guess "stinky" is out too then...what would you suggest? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just raising a point and making sure you've thought about your word choice; if you think "smelly" is fine, then perhaps it is I who has divergent views. Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and raptors such as the brown goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus), [..], and probably powerful owl seize young birds." I'm confused, is "probably powerful owl" a common name for a species of owl?
yes - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fix your brackets w/ the binomen Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prey species were mainly ..." I wonder if this list should be split up instead of a single sentence that spans half the paragraph
split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • You're inconsistent about the use of |via= -- I don't think it's necessary to say via BHL if that's where the URL goes.
I never used it but someone else added...I have removed them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just my own personal preference, but I'd prefer to see a more consistent use of DOIs and links to the publisher's versions, e.g., doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1846.tb00135.x for Gould 1846
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I see the benefit to wikilinking Gould in a reference that immediately follows a sentence wikilinking Gould.
umm...if you're in the reference section? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The google books link for Gould does not take the reader straight to the relevant page.
Found a better link. switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gould 1846 also lacks volume information.
added it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused why you list Giacon's first name as "Gianbattista (John)"; he listed his name on the chapter as "John Giacon" doi:10.1515/9781614510581.251 [moved 03:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs should all be consistently 13 digits and hyphenated
Done what I could - one is ten digits only Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that something published in 2008 would have the old format... Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I see the benefit to wikilinking in references in general -- why would the reader want to know more about the journal Zoologische Verhandelingen?
I think it is rare but not impossible that somoene would be interested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Addendum: You just cite Higgins 1999 as if he's the author of the entire book, but he's only the senior editor. You seem to only be citing from one chapter which has its own title, author, and pages, within this book, and these should be specified in the reference. Umimmak (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)][reply]
Higgins is main compiler - each species account is a (sort of) chapter. The text is very dense and lists loads of links. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand, so was there an author for the southern boobook chapter in addition to the Higgins? Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I could see Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Addenda: why don't you have the full citation for "Is the Timor southern boobook a separate species?" You should have the date (2010), volume (28), issue (1), page (10), journal (Boobook) at the minimum. 03:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC) ]
No excuse. must have been in a hurry. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umimmak (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

I fixed a couple of obvious typos. Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • it was for many years considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand until 1999—perhaps keep temporal elements together as it was for many years prior to 1999 considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand
changed to "generally" as most authorities lumped but there were a few splitters here and there... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • continent and Tasmania— is Tasmania not considered part of the Australian continent?
twaeked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legend for your map would look neater if you had the left align column of colour boxes vertically aligned
I'll look into it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) —over-precise conversion for this purpose
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • killed with rat poison— any particular poison?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support above, a nice article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz

edit

Lead

  • "Described by John Latham in 1801, it was for generally considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand until 1999." Something wrong here.
offending preposition removed. I forgot it when rewording before. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

  • Does the male defend a territory outside the breeding season?
It's not clear - so mentioned this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the female help with defending the breeding territory?
It's not ruled out...but not mentioned either Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the pair bond maintained from one year to the next?
Anecdotal bit suggest not monogamous over years Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the female start incubating when the clutch is complete - or does she start when the first egg is laid? In other words - do the eggs all hatch at the same time (synchronously)? If not, presumably the last born does not survive when food is scarce.
Source doesn't say - moreover sometimes the young hatch at teh same time and sometimes ...not. I added what I could. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long do southern boobooks live? What is the oldest recorded?
15 years 11 months - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After posting the above I discovered that the Higgins article is available online. The answers to my questions are not always straightforward

Higgins can be tricky as it can be a mass of primary sources unintegrated. Also have to tease out NZ material. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Perhaps mention that the young stay with their parents for some weeks after fledging. p.860
post fledging dispersal added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some sites are reused for up to 20 years, especially if broods have been successfully raised in them before." I find this sentence confusing. To me it suggests that an individual pair could use a site for up to 20 years - but southern boobooks do not live that long.
I added "by the species" to indicate that this does not mean a single pair Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WereSpielChequers

edit

Nice read, I've made some tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. Not sure if the phrase "Caves or ledges are alternative roosting sites if there are no trees available." is fully compatible with the idea of them being restricted to habitats where there are trees. But anyway the prose is of FA standard ϢereSpielChequers 23:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

changes look fine. I realise the critical adjective there is "suitable" (trees)... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks and added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 30 December 2017 (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/Southern_boobook/archive1&oldid=1136095473"