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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 8 February 2022 [1].

---

Black-and-yellow broadbill[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another broadbill article, this one requiring less effort since it shares a lot of sources from my last one. Have at it. AryKun (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

This is a high-quality article that is a pleasure to read. It is short but appears to be comprehensive. I only have a few minor comments.

• "in the Asian broadbill family Eurylamidae" - the family is not restricted to Asia - Grauer's broadbill is endemic to Africa

I was using Asian broadbill as a common name, based on how it's used on eBird/BOW (Asian and Grauer's broadbill), although I could replace it with typical broadbills per IOC if you want.

BOW uses "Asian and Grauer's Broadbills". Truncating the name to "Asian Broadbills" is misleading. I suggest you follow the IOC and use "typical broadbills". I notice that BLI also uses "Typical Broadbills", see: here. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to typical broadbills throughout.

• Cladogram. Perhaps mention that the Visayan broadbill (Sarcophanops samarensis) was not included in the study. (It was previous considered to be conspecific with wattled broadbill - see wiki page and here)

Added footnote.

"The study did not include the Visayan broadbill, which was then considered conspecific with the wattled broadbill." Most authorities had split the Visayan broadbill from the wattled broadbill well before 2017, the date of the Selvatti study. See the Avibase entry here The IOC listed separate species in Version 1.0 (2011) (but H&M4 published in 2014 still has the Visayan broadbill as a subsp). Selvatti et al would have been well aware of the split - perhaps they didn't have a sample. How about "The study did not include the Visayan broadbill, which was formerly considered conspecific with the wattled broadbill." Link conspecific and the note itself needs references. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Feeding

• "holding on the tree trunks" perhaps "holding onto the tree trunks" But what is special about how woodpeckers hold onto trees?

Not really sure. Mentioned in source, so I guess might be important, and different types of birds probably have unique ways of holding on to trees?

Breeding

• "The measurements of one nest were 17 cm × 13 cm × 10 cm" - is 17cm the height?

Yeah.

• Perhaps mention that the incubation and fledgling periods are not known.

Added.

References

• For consistency I suggest you use "sentence case" for the titles of all journal articles.

Done, I think for all.

• Ref 3. Raffles 1822. Why not link to the actual page (297) here - rather than to the title page of the volume.

Done.

• Ref 6. IOC - need to include authors: Gill, F.; Donsker, D.; Rasmussen, P., eds.

Added, not exactly sure what eds means and where that should be added.

• Ref 10. ITIS - better to cite the IOC here

Done.

• Ref 13. Bruce et al 2020. The Cornell Birds of the World is behind a paywall. Normally on English wikipedia a simple link from the title is only provided when a page is open access. In this case the doi alone would suffice as it links to the login page. Otherwise one can use url-access=subscription

Done

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref. 9 Lim et al 2018. The link is broken. I can access a scan of the article here.

Replaced link.

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Aa77zz, I think I've addressed all your concerns. AryKun (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great work - Aa77zz (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
• File:EurylaimusOchromalusGould.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death

Not sure how to do that, could I just replace with this?

Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with second image.

• File:EurylaimusOchromalusDist.png needs a source for the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with better image by Cephas which has sources.

Passing review after a double check and some tweaks to get rid of sandwiching (t · c) buidhe 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

• I'll have a look soon. This bird looks hilarious from the front! FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The other version of the painting looks better[2], you can add it again if you just add the PD US tag.

Done.

• "but populations from the Banyak Islands and West Borneo are sometimes treated as distinct subspecies" Maybe say "have sometimes been", as it currently seems to contradict the first part of the sentence a bit?

Done.

• Link cicada?

Done.

• The image under breeding could maybe be left-aligned so there isn't one, continuous image-wall on the right?

Done.

• Any stories to tell about the non-subspecies synonyms listed in the taxobox?

Not really, both appear to be straightforward junior synonyms.

• The external link seems to be dead, and probably of little use anyway.

Removed.

• "including orthopterans (grasshoppers, crickets, and locusts), mantises, beetles, hymenopterans (ants, wasps, sawflies, and bees)" Seems pretty arbitrary which groups are linked or not, why not just link them all?

I've added links to cricket and locust, grasshoppers, ants, beetles, and bees are all sufficiently common and well-known that I think linking them would constitute overlooking.

• "It has also been recorded feeding on molluscs" Such as? I can imagine this mainly refers to snails?

Source just says "small molluscs"

• Link "sallies" to sally striking?

Done.

• "nests are sometimes places close to" Placed.

Fixed.

• "defending their nest from Prevost's squirrels" What did the squirrels want?

Added that they were foraging near the nest.

• Predators of them?

No info.

• Why is Brunei linked as the sole country?

The other countries are all pretty well-known and linking them would be overlinking, but I'd guess about 70% of people don't know Brunei is a country.

• Individual countries only seem to be listed in the intro, should also be in the article body then.

Done.

• Support - that's it from me, looking nice. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

• There are several MOS:SANDWICH issues. Please remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean the images in the taxonomy and description sections sandwiching with the infobox? AryKun (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

• I see several references to "typical broadbill" throughout the article; at first I thought it had some technical meaning, but now I'm wondering if the common name for Eurylaimidae is "typical broadbill". If so, is there any way to explicitly say so? The word "typical" is not one I would expect to see as part of a taxon name, so other readers might be confused, as I am.

  Having now looked at the other FAC reviews for this, I see it's the taxon name for Eurylaimidae as I suspected. I think if you create a redirect from typical broadbill to Eurylaimidae and link it at first occurrence in this article, that would resolve the issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Created the redirect, but I don't see a need to link as the first mentions are always as "typical broadbill family Eurylaimidae" where the taxon name is linked immediately after. As an aside, typical is a common adjective in the common names for groups of taxa, used to denote taxa that are typical or representative of a larger group (eg typical warbler, typical owls, typical gobies). AryKun (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then it's just my ignorance of that fact about taxonomics; if I could think of another way to make this clearer to readers like me I would suggest it but I can't, so I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only issue I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

• Ref#2: In "Dekker, René W.R.J.", I think there should be space between 'W.', 'R.', and 'J.'

Whether or not a space is placed between initials is a matter of taste and is not specified in the MOS - but it should be consistent in an article. (Fancy software would use a thinspace.) (some editors omit the periods - again a matter of taste.) - Aa77zz (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that currently is not consistent. We have both "Zubkova, E. N." (with space) and "Dekker, René W.R.J." (without space) More instances were with space, so I suggested to switch to that format. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

• Ref#2: "Zoologische Verhandelingen" can be linked to, well, Zoologische Verhandelingen

Done.

• Ref#3: Publisher should just be "Linnean Society of London" (without 'the' definite article)

Done.

• Ref#3: Not required, but suggesting to add Biodiversity Heritage Library in |via= parameter. (but that should then be consistent with rest of the article)

Done

• Ref#4: Can you check the link. It links to the work which you cite in Ref#3.

Replaced link

• Ref#5: The Google Book version of that ISBN mentions A & C Black as the publisher. Can you confirm?

Christopher Helm as the publisher should be sufficient to identify the book. Christopher Helm is owned (an imprint of A&C Black). But at least some libraries use Christopher Helm: see Worldcat and the British Library. Another example: Nature is part of Macmillan, which in turn is part of the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group - but Nature is usually considered as the publisher. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Helm's an imprint of Black, since the book was publishes after the buyout I've piped the link to Christopher Helm Publishers, which redirects to A & C Black.

• Ref#6: Missing website/publisher parameter. Publisher appears to be International Ornithologists' Union's World Bird List

Added IOC World Bird List as website.

• Ref#7: What makes Avibase a high quality reliable source?

Well, it's managed by Denis Lepage, a subject-level expert, and hosted by the Canadian partner of Birdlife International.

• Ref#8: "Vol. 2." should not be a part of the title. There is a separate parameter for that.

Fixed.

• Ref#8: The ISBN needs to be hyphenated. Suggesting to use this tool.

Done.

• Ref#9: Would this link be useful?

Added.

• Ref#9: Looks like you missed "MUHD TAUHID" in the long list of authors.

Added.

• Ref#10: I don't think "University, Harvard " should be mentioned as an author when it is mentioned as publisher.

Removed.

• Ref#11: Either full names or space between abbreviated letters. (Russo, C.A.D.M should be Russo, C. A. D. M")

Added spaces.

• Ref#12: Same as above

Added.

• Ref#16: The Biological Bulletin can be linked

Linked.

• Ref#16: The source tells that the publishing date in Feb 2020. Can you confirm?

The date of the issue in which it was published is December 2019.

• Ref#20: URL-access-level should be marked as 'subscription'

Done.

• The following references are missing url-access-date: Ref#2, #3, #4, #10, #11, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20. My approach is that if there is a url, there should be an access date. Let me know if you follow another (consistent) approach.

My understanding is that access dates are not necessary when the link is to a scanned version of the document. They just add clutter. The cite journal documentation here has: "Not required for linked documents that do not change" and "Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates." - Aa77zz (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an approach, just use the automatic citations, but as mentioned above, url access dates don't seem to be necessary since all the refs you mentioned are either journal articles or books.

• Suggesting to add ISSNs wherever possible.

Is there a tool for doing this or will it have to be done manually?

Manually. You'll get the ISSNs at https://www.worldcat.org/ or the Wikipedia pages of the journals. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or can even try [3], though I am not sure if it'll add ISSNs. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kavyansh.Singh, I've added the ISSNs for all the sources I could find manually and also run IABot. AryKun (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I'd say this is a pass for the source review. The nominator already has 2 FAs, so I don't think spot-checks are required. Though, I'll be more than happy to do that if a coordinator requests. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.