- 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 SandyGeorgia 21:39, 16 September 2010 [1].
Madeira Firecrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Small, yet perfectly formed — at least the bird is. This little Madeiran beauty has only recently been recognised as a separate species, and since, unlike Zino's Petrel, it's not endangered, there's not a huge amount of research compared with that on its widespread continental cousin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that checklinks says that ref 5 is subscription only, but the full article is in fact freely available, so I've not amended the ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. Ref 5 is indeed reachable without subscription. For that link, I suggest it would be an enhancement to link instead to the abstract page, since the current link triggers an immediate PDF download. In my view this may needlessly put some people off, whereas the abstract page gives information straight away while also providing links to the other two views (full view, and PDF download). PL290 (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking. The abstract page (actually the article's first page) is already linked via the doi, so the option is there. My normal practice is always to link to the full article if possible, but never to link to abstracts other than when unavoidable (like doi). This is because a link to a commercial page inviting purchase of the article is a bit too close to spam for my liking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Jim. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Current illustrations, while they look legit, aren't great. I've sent out an email to see if I can get something better. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I couldn't find anything free to use
Taking a proper read through-
- "This kinglet usually hops with its body held horizontally" What does that mean, sorry? (I see now, though it wasn't clear before- would taxonomy not go before description? That's how we do it with fungi articles)
- there are arguments for doing it either way, but the bird FAs have tended to be like this, say what you are describing, then describe it. I wouldn't go to the stake to keep the current order Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cytochrome b gene divergence between" Suddenly very technical- links?
- linked in previous sentence, surely overlinking to do so here?
- Sorry, you're right. Clearly I was being dull... J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "but not all authorities have recognised the new species" Who hasn't? Why not?
- there was a ref to Clements for this, but I've spelt it out now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "(although the Madeiran birds react strongly to playback of the calls of mainland Firecrests)" Again, sorry, I don't follow
- The point I was making in this sentence is that the continental Firecrests don't respond to the calls of the Madeira birds, which is evidence for species status, but the Madeiran form does recognise The European bird calls, which I thought was worth putting as a parenthetical statement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The island form was split as the monotypic Madeira Firecrest based on differences in morphology, vocalisations, and genetics." Perhaps I'm just a little dull today, but, again, I didn't follow.
- Looking again- the issue of which responds to which is discussed in the description and the taxonomy section. Could we perhaps have it all together? J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've just left the description of the song in Description, and moved the lack of recognition by Common Firecrests to Taxonomy, tweaked to make clearer too Jimfbleak - talk to me?
- "to endemic tree heaths" Like what?
- "The clutch size is unknown" Does a reliable source note that note research has been done, or is this a way of saying "I couldn't find a source"?
- This statement is referenced to BWP, which would have given a figure rather than a vague comment if the clutch size was known. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "moss and lichens which often covers the" moss and lichen which often covers, or mosses and lichens which often cover, presumably?
- "Even the high mountain nest sites of the endangered Zino's Petrel are not safe from these adaptable predators." A bit David Attenborough- rephrase?
- Even the high mountain nest sites of the endangered Zino's Petrel are at risk from these predators. Is this less dramatic? I'd like to keep the sentence to illustrate the ubiquity of these mammals Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Data on specific parasites of the Madeira Firecrest is lacking" Again...
- Unlike the other two instances where I have been able to provide some evidence that the research has not been done, I can't do so here. I certainly couldn't find anything, and it's an unlikely candidate, especially since there is little parasitology even for Common Firecrest. Studies tend to be done on common and widespread species where the nests are easy to find, such as swallows, sparrows and thrushes. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but it comes across as a little ORy to state that no research has been done on a topic. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "although its population has not been evaluated." Again- do you have sources for these statements, or are they based on the fact you couldn't find any information?
- I'm not an expert, but how can that authority be right when it was only recognised as a separate species a few years ago? Surely that would be the authority for the subspecies? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Harcourt described this distinctive island form, so he is the authority for this Madeiran bird whether it is considered as a full species or as a subspecies of Firecrest. Many of Linnaeus' species aren't even in the same family that he placed them in, nevertheless, he described them, and remains the authority for all time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally pretty good. I don't know if this is a touchy subject, but nominating at GAC first may have been helpful to you. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thanks, made a few more replies. Also, I managed to get some images released- see above. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and especially for the images,
I'll sort images and outstanding points later, RL intervenes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a few minor comments:
- Instead of the current map, a map showing the location of Madeira may be more informative.
- I thought about that, but it's easy enough to follow the link if people don't know where the island is, and I wanted to show the archipelago because this is one of a series of Madeira endemics, not all of which breed on the main island
- [[monotyping|monotypic]] – er... (I reworded the entire sentence)
- Do we know why it doesn't occur on the minor islands of the Madeira archipelago?
- None of them now have suitable laurel forest habitat. Porto Santo used to have forests, and Trocaz Pigeon once occurred there, but was extirpated when the forests went. I could find no evidence that the firecrest ever bred there, but it's less likely than the large, crop-eating and edible pigeon to have been mentioned in the old sources anyway. The smaller islands are uninhabited now, whether they were were ever capable of supporting a woodland bird is questionable.
- Images all look OK. Ucucha 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (moral or otherwise) as birds wikiproject contributor. Nothing jumps out as glaringly fixable. Comprehensive and prose polished. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Not the longest of articles, but this doesn't strike me as the most heavily studied bird. Not sure what more there is to be said. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review and support. I've put in all I can find, and even checked on the recent fire. Unsurprisingly, nothing regarding the firecrest, especially as their damp forests don't make great tinder.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
