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) 12:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [1].Reply[reply]

Forest raven[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a familiar Australian bird...well not that well-studied really. While buffing up its relative (Australian raven) which is a featured article, I read alot about the forest raven. The article is shorter as less is known, however I think it is pretty comprehensive and can't see anything else to improve. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Cas—can you note whether this will be a Wikicup entry? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thx - all good, just had to flick back one bit which causes confusion as "Australian raven" is only one of the three species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • If you would like a different/better map, with clear sourcing, let me know. --Gaff (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might have a crack at will be redoing the map actually. I've done it for others. And adding the consensus distribution and ref. thanks for offering. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
update- have found a map of southeastern Australia and added range onto it. In article now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been tidying up and I misplaced the goddamn thumbstick....will email as soon as I find it :P found and emailed. looks alright to me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SupportComments from Gaff[edit]

Looks good overall. Most images are from one source, who may or may not be expert on bird identification. Given your report that there are no other corvids on the island, shouldn't be an issue. --Gaff (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have been looking at this - how's this then? I have switched the order of the first two sentences, so the para begins by pointing out that it is difficult to tell teh difference, which then helps explain why Gould only described one species initially Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Little should be lowercase here, was missed after the capitalisation wars. I've oscillated between listing binomial names alongside common names in articles. There are a few to add.....will do shortly and see how it looks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the Torresian crow, though now it is Corvus orru Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
Maybe instead of "C. cecilae (crow)" you could link as "C. cecilae (crow)"? Looks odd that only the word crow is linked. --Gaff (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think its better to list the name as I have done now - "crow" is not what is meant so spelt out Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have unabbreviated it to International Ornithological Committee Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, added "as the habitat between became inhospitable" hence leading to long term separation of the populations. Is that clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yeah, but "blue-purple sheen" is fewer syllables and means the same thing ..also never seen the word "iridescent" used with corvids.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough! --Gaff (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
trimmed in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
to acres. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only use sfn for individual different pages or page ranges from a book, otherwsie we end up with an unnecessarily complex reference section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes some sense. I may ask you more about that in the future, for articles that I am building. --Gaff (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are still a few minor fixes still on my laundry list, which may or may not be helfpul in improving the article. There is also the discussion below about what exact detail should be in the lead and particularly the first sentence. In my opinion, that is a discussion perhaps best held at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds so that some overall guidelines can be reached. The current verbiage is in keeping with Featured Articles on similar species (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Showcase). I am a newcomer to FA review, so the delegates will want to consider my vote accordingly. I have spot checked only a few references, but seemed okay. --Gaff (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Maury[edit]

This is really very minor, but now's the time to address it. I have found that many articles on the wiki add meaningless jargon to appease a certain technical faction. In this article I can see this in the very first sentence, which contains the statement "is a passerine bird in the family Corvidae". I don't think the target audience gives a crap about these two definitions, yet will be tempted to interrupt their reading to click-through to ensure they're not missing something important - and they aren't. These terms may be important to some bird nerds, but such stuff belongs in the body or sidebars and I suggest removing it. That's the first sentence, I'll give it a better read-over later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Just my 2 cents...In many instances, I completely agree that ledes are over detailed. (See also: "Mammals are a clade of endothermic amniotes") I do not think, however, that "is a passerine bird in the family Corvidae" is overly detailed. Just my bias, maybe hypocritically so... For comparison, I looked at the first 4 of the 137 featured bird articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Showcase and all have something similar. I'm only a minor bird nerd, having looked through a handful of field guides and read two books about crows. Even still, knowing passerines and corvids informs this article without creating too much distraction. But I can see your point... --Gaff (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maury Markowitz, it's a fine line we tread withj jargon and accuracy. For instance, I'd love to change "corvidae" to "crow and raven family", however that loses accuracy (and I have been corrected previously) as the family contains jays, northern hemisphere magpies and nutcrackers. "passerine" is pretty broad and I think one linke to corvidae is not a big deal, especially when it says "family" right before it, so the reader who doesn't know the phrase gets an idea its a group of related organisms. I do want to eliminate as much jargon as possible though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So this is a type of crow, right? Is there any reason to be more specific than that in the lede? We have a whole body to be specific in. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
we-ell it depends...do you consider to be a raven as a type of crow? or are both of equal "rank" as it were? A bit like horses and ponies really.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)\Reply[reply]
Precisely. And we have an entire article to flesh out that definition. And why do we still have the entirely useless term passerine in there? We may as well say it has wings. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OTOH, I'd find it pointless to say "The forest raven is a bird" as that is patently obvious, and feel that "passerine bird" is more exacting and more educational to the reader as it helps define the critter more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Passerine bird" is not more exacting - a classification that includes half of all birds is less exacting that "raven". Your argument is precisely the sort of problem I'm talking about, jargon because it seems cool to include jargon and sound smart, when doing so actually lowers the readability of the article. I'm not talking about replacing this word with that, I'm talking about removing it all. If the reader can't figure out that this is an article about a bird, having them click through to passerine isn't going to fix that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Casliber here, it has nothing to do with "being cool" (why the weird accusations?) but is about accuracy. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, therefore info about classification has to be included. Otherwise it wouldn't be a summary, would it? It is the norm across animal articles to mention important parent taxa in the intro, "corvid" is as much "jargon" as "equine", "feline", or "canid". There is already a Simple English Wikipedia, so we don't have to dumb this down to that level. There might be a point in "passerine" being so broad as to be pointless, though... FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"corvid" is as much "jargon" as "equine", "feline", or "canid". Precisely my point. Do you really think that using the term "feline" in the intro improves the article compared to "cat"? If the reader hasn't heard the term they'll have to click on the link to find out something they already know. This is useless filler. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then it would appear the intro of pretty much all animal articles are wrong in your opinion, which makes it a wider discussion that should be taken up at Wikiproject Tree of Life[2] or some such, not the FAC of a single article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from IJReid[edit]

This article is a very good read, and as I completed the GA review for the Australian raven, I believe I have learned a fair amount about the species and genus now. I would support this as a Featured Article, but I have two nitpicks. The caption of the first photograph outside of the lead starts with a lowercase, this should be uppercase. Also, the second paragraph of Taxonomy and naming is difficult to fully understand. It would be best to mention the names of the taxa rendered redundant to C. australis. Also, the reasoning the first revisor was required are not mentioned, and this might cause misinterpretations about the taxonomic history. In reply to Maury Markowitz, it is appropriate for the sentence to include "passerine", as raven is already mentioned, bird is much too general, and Corvidae is noted very soon after in the same sentence. IJReid discuss 03:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well-spotted on the caption and fixed now. Will have a tweak on the para a bit later. thanks for the support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I can't see much wrong with this. Just a few minor comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As with the other two species of raven in Australia—although technically correct, given the taxonomic complexities I wonder if " other two species named as ravens..." might be better?
hmmm, to me that implies the names are less valid than other common names. The feather bases are used as a valid sorting tool in Australia, and the evolution supports the name split here between Australian ravens and crows....I think it also makes the flow a a litle awkward. Might pass on this one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • perished of tuberculosis in 1778—what's wrong with "died" ?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • as evidenced by the forest raven only found in closed forest refuges on the mainland but a wider variety of habitats in Tasmania — I would add a "being" and an "in"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the forest raven could be confused with the black currawong,— really?
my mother in law pointed at a pied currawong the other day and thought it was a magpie...after that I think anything's possible.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The call is considered the most reliable means of identification in areas where its range— subject of "its" is "call"
expanded instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Forest raven Vocalization"—in the audio caption, capitalisation looks odd
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Forest ravens fly from Tasmania and the mainland to islands well offshore in Bass Strait and may even traverse the strait entirely. It was…—"ravens…it"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing else, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Hey Cas, long time no see–Please add alt text for all images. Good luck! -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)NewyorkadamReply[reply]

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Just a reminder you'll need a source review, Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John[edit]

Tentative support on prose. Like to take one last look but it looks great so far. --John (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it's been a couple of weeks I'll take the opportunity to close this now, John -- I'm sure Cas will welcome any post-FAC tweaks you see fit to make... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review from Laser brain[edit]

Everything looks fine—I didn't note any problematic sources or any problems with formatting. --Laser brain (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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