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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2023 [1].

---

Snowy plover[edit]

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The snowy plover is one of the best studied shorebirds of the Americas, but also one of the rarest. I tried to include many interesting details while keeping everything as concise as possible. It is my first bird article, and I am looking forward to your comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting and quality review (no spotchecks)[edit]

• FN#2 Grinnell 1982 is available online here; the volume and issue# should be included, as well as the series (University of California Publications in Zoology)

added.

• FN#3, FN#23 be consistent with punctuation of author names (compare Russo, IRM v. Maher, K.H.)

Fixed this instance and some others.

• FN#4 and FN#8 No isbn?

Added.

• FN#4 and FN#8 it's interesting to use title case for chapter titles and sentence case for the title of the book (I would have thought doing the reverse was usual)

Puh, this is one of these conventions that I do not understand (having different rules for books and journals). I put the book titles in title case too, now, hope that works.

• FN#6 I think the page should be "e78068"

Fixed.

• FN#9 Don't need to include publishers for journals. The binomial in the article title should be italicized.

Ok, removed.

• FN#10 is available open access at doi:10.2307/4073508

Added.

• FN#11 not sure why the citation mentions "via Biodiversity Heritage Library", because it doesn't even link there. If a link is available to that page, that should be included.

I copied that citation from another FA. So I am not sure what that was doing. Removed.

The Helm Dictionary used to be available on BHL around I think a year ago, so the database attribution is probably from then. The BHL copy of the book was removed a couple months ago, but it is available on Archive.org if you want to add a link. AryKun (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying! I added the link. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FN#12 two of the editors have authorlinks, which is fine, but inconsistent as there seem to be only three authorlinks throughout the citations

I added a few more, but these only make sense if the author has an article to start with, which is rarely the case.

• FN#11, 15 the ISBNs should be formatted consistently

Fixed.

• sometimes authors' first names are truncated to initials, even though full author names are available at the source page. This would be ok if it was consistent throughout, I guess (though I'm not sure why one would want to trim out that information), but it's not, as there are other citations that use full first names.

Personally, I would prefer to simply cite them as the names appear in the sources. However, here at FAC, people ask for consistency. It is often not possible to find the full names of all authors that are cited in the entire article. So I simply truncate them all, to meet the consistency requirement.

• the citation that's somewhat cryptically mentioned in the note is available for viewing here, with all bibliographic details needed to make it into a full citation

Wow, thanks for the hint! I was looking for it and couldn't find it. Two other sources seemed to indicate that they did not had access to the first description (as they did not cite the first description directly, but another paper that was citing the first description. This is why I decided to include that note.). Added now.

Other than these formatting nitpicks, the sources appear to be scholarly and appropriate for use as "high-quality reliable sources". I'll be back later with a full review. Esculenta (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Responses above, should all be addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

• "which comprises 32 extant species and is therefore the most specious genus of the family" I'm not sure what context of its meaning you're using "specious" in here-- could you clarify (on the FAC)?

"Species-rich". Changed to the alternative form "speciose", which is hopefully less ambiguous.

• "The snowy plover, formerly Charadrius nivosus, is to be transferred into the genus Anarhynchus, as Anarhynchus nivosus, along with a number of other plover species." I'm (as a non-specialist reader) a bit confused by this. If they know that it should be transferred, why hasn't it been yet? Who does the transferring?

The major resources (Ebird, Birds of the World, Inaturalist, etc.) already made this step. But Wikipedia is following the IOC World Bird List, which apparently did not do this update yet. I expect that this will happen soon.

• " much debate revolved around the question whether the two represent a single or separate species" you don't really establish that any real debate occurred-- more that Oberholser said something, it was largely accepted for about 100 years

Very good point. There has been debate, but I thought it is not really worth mentioning here. But then, yeah, "much debate" is an overstatement. Removed.

• How do you decide whose work get's their name and who is just lumped into "a study in year"?

Usually, I give names either for works that have been seminal to the topic (usually old ones), or when I provide the opinion of one author that is either speculative or probably not shared by other ornithologists (to attribute the statement to that particular author).

• "and hints at the occurrence of these birds along rivers" Is this a common thing?

Charadrius has many species, and many of them are common along rivers. The snowy plover itself not so much, though.

• " In some cases, combatants pull on each others feathers, and may even pull out a flight feather. " What is the difference between a flight feather and a regular feather?

There are flight feathers (used for flight), and downy feathers (used for insulation), and display feathers (used for advertisement). I now specified "tail feather", and linked to flight feather.

• You link nest scrape in the caption but not ground scrape in the article, seems like would be worth a link in both places?

Linked now, and changed the text to "nest scrape", too.

• " The chicks are presocial" The linked article does not contain the term "presocial", but does have "precocial". Typo?

Oh yeah, thanks, fixed.

• "in the coastal areas of northern California, chicks less than 10 days old were brooded 58% of the time on average. " This is not clear to me-- 58% of their first ten days on average they are brooded? or 58% of them were still brooded after ten days? or something else

It means that, each day, the parents sit on them 58% of the time (i.e., 14 hours per day). I need to think about how to formulate this more clearly; if you have an idea, please let me know!

Maybe "In the coastal areas of northern California, chicks less than 10 days old were brooded for an average of 58% of each day" ? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, took your suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " In western North America, chicks are attended for 29 to 47" what does attended mean in this context?

"attended" here means that the parents attend (take care of) the chicks. Should I replace with "are cared for"?

I think that sounds better

Changed. I hope that the double word ("are cared for for") is not a problem? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think SchroCat's suggestion below works well. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " the New Carissa spill of 1999 that is known to have killed a minimum of 45 plovers" Could probably just say "that killed a minimum"

Hm. I wanted to emphasize the "known" here, because there were many more spills with probably much larger numbers, but nobody counted. This one is worth mentioning because we have some data at least.

Oh in that case, I think it's ok.

• "In the future, effects of climate change, such as droughts and habitat loss due to sea level rise, are likely to negatively affect this species" Implying that they don't already, which is probably innacurate?

Probably. Changed to are likely to become significant threats.

• "In Mexico, the species is listed as "threatened" since 2010" maybe "has been... since 2010"?

Yes, done.

• "but target numbers have not yet been reached" The target numbers are?

The source didn't specify, and I searched again and didn't find this information anywhere. I will keep looking.

Actually, I couldn't find anything on target numbers in other sources. I therefore removed this information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a really interesting and well written article. A number of my points are probably my confusion and don't need edits to address them Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this helpful review! I responded to all, but for some I have questions; please let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Thank you, again. I think all points should be addressed, and I hope I did not miss anything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A well written, highly readable, and wonderfully illustrated article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FM[edit]

• Will have a look soon. I think this has the overall best quality photos and image selection of any bird article I've seen at FAC, nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I am quite fortunate with this one, also regarding the amount of interesting research that I could add! And thanks for reviewing, I am looking forward to more comments!
• Point Reyes National Seashore is duplinked.
  • It is linked once in an image caption, and once in the text, that should be fine?

The highlight duplinks tools shows me it's linked in successive last two paragraphs under "Causes of decline". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see. Fixed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No cladogram?
  • As stated in the taxonomy section, the plovers are momentarily undergoing a major taxonomic revision, and the snowy plover is to be moved into another genus. There is an old cladogram from 2015, but it would show the old taxonomy (which the Wikipedia article is still following, though). And there is a newer one from 2021 that lists this species as "Ochthodromus nivosus", which seems to be outdated already. I didn't see any cladogram that has it under its new name. My secondary source (birds of the world), which was just updated this month, states that the snowy plover is most closely related to the Kentish, the white fronted, the Malaysian, and the chestnut-banded plover, and I included this information. However, no cladogram I saw matches this precisely. So I am not sure; should I include the old 2015 cladogram for now, or go without cladogram for the moment?
    • Actually I was wrong. The 2015 cladogram matches precisely the relationships stated by the 2023 secondary source. Added now, but without scientific names, since the genus name may change soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Could there be a caption for the map that explains the colours?
  • Why didn't I thought about that myself? Added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You are inconsistent in whether nationality and occupation are listed for the people mentioned.
  • I removed them now to be consistent with other bird FAs.

• Kentish plover is linked at second instead of first mention.
  • Fixed.

• "The genus Anarhynchus did previously contain" Seems a bit unnatural with the "did", perhaps "The genus Anarhynchus previously contained"?
  • Took your suggestion.

• Seems inconsistent when you give the scientific name of a species after first mention of the common name or not?
  • Simplified text so that I could remove the one mention of the scientific name. Scientific names add complexity and are not strictly pertinent, so I prefer to avoid them to maximize readability, and also to be consistent with other bird FAs.

• Since the WP:Engvar most associated with this species is US English, shouldn't the article be written in that? I see both ise and ize endings.
  • I found one -ise ending which I fixed, hope I didn't overlooked something.

• "However, a 2013 genetic analysis found" Give author, as you do with another genetic study mentioned?
  • Removed that author name to be consistent. If I would give all author names for all statements, it would be too much (I mostly cite a single secondary source, but this source is just a summary of dozens of papers which I do not cite directly).

• "have recognized them as" Don't think "have" is needed here.
  • Fixed. Thank you, I am looking for more comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that you removed binomials elsewhere, how about: "Similar species within its range include the piping plover Charadrius melodus), the collared plover (Charadrius collaris), the semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), and Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia)."
  • Removed them here, too.

• I wonder if "demes" need explanation in parenthesis?
  • I originally did not because it is a bit words, but added now.

• While the article is image heavy, I wonder if this video[2] would be interesting under for example habitat? It shows something not really shown elsewhere currently in the article, a very large congregation of birds on a beach, and it is pretty interesting in showing then all moving in unison back and forth, seemingly in response to the waves?
  • Very difficult to see but I believe these are dunlins, not snowy plovers. At least some of them have black bellies and longer beaks, which can only be dunlin. Also, seeing snowy plovers feeding in such numbers would be highly unlikely. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perhaps enough to question their identity in the Commons file description so others don't add it in other language articles? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I just edit the Commons file description, saying that these could be Dunlins? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if it can just be added to the current description. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The typical call is a sweet" Seems a bit subjective and ambiguous way of describing it? How does a reader know what "sweet" means?
  • That what the source says, and I don't know of a better way to describe it. Yet, "sweet" means different things to different people. I removed it.

You could maybe say "has been described as "sweet"" to show that it's a claim? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The "broken wing" image[3] could maybe benefit from a closer crop?
  • Done.

• "Brine fly larvae are often shaked before consumption" Shaken? I'm not actually sure, pinging Gog the Mild... FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. Yes, 'shaken'. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "in flocks up to 6 km away" Give conversion?
  • Done.

• "and sizes between 0.1 and 1 ha have been reported" Likewise?
  • Done.

• "on the ground in footprints" What footprints? By humans?
  • They will choose any depression that is suitable. I added human footprints as example.

• "The polygamous mating system of the snowy plover is uncommon" Perhaps clarify "in other birds"?
  • Done

• "average at 31 mm in length, 23 mm in width, and 8.5 g in weight" Conversions?
  • Done

• "Under hot conditions greater 40°C" Conversion?
  • Done

• It feels a bit like the "Territoriality and roosting" section should come after the breeding section, since much of what is discussed seems to be related to events that happen after?
  • Hmm I need to think about it. The idea was to have a general section on social interactions first, and then the more specific brooding section. The territoriality section introduces the nest scrape behavior, which becomes important in the brooding section.

Ok, makes sense then, also per below. FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Either way, it seems repetitive that both the above mentioned sections state that they can roost in tracks, some way to consolidate this?
  • Only the first mention is about roosting. The second is about the nest (when the ground is to hard to excavate a nest, then they sometimes use footprints for their nests). These are two different things.

• "as if they would be broken" As if they are broken?
  • Done

• "were approached by less than 30 m" Convert?
  • Done

• "and a 30 m buffer zone" Not sure if conversions are needed if already given earlier...
  • Since we only link terms at first mention as well, it seems consequential not to provide the same conversion twice.

• Link communal roosting and bird call?
  • Done.

• "but had been classified as a subspecies of the Kentish plover in 1922"

But was classified? Sounds a bit odd now.

Changed.

• Nest scrapes and egg predators could be linked in the article body too.
  • Done.

• Link saline and alkaline?
  • Changed to salt lake and soda lake, which hopefully will be a bit more accessible, too.

• "Charadrius nivosus occidentalis" Abbreviate first two parts of the trinomial?
  • Done.

• Thank you again. All addressed to date. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looking nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by SC[edit]

Marker - will pop along soon. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "and also one of the rarest": you don't need "also"

Removed.

Taxonomy

• "along with a number of other plover species" -> either "along with several other plover species" or "along with other plover species"

Took the first.

• "the following cladogram": I'm never a fan of "following" or similar indications of position, as things can be moved and changed. (We have rules about it relating to images, and this is close enough to draw a parallel)

Changed.

• "cladogram of a 2015 study": it's not a cladogram of the study, but from a study

corrected.

• "the Old World": an odd and rather archaic term – and one likely to be misunderstood by many. May be best to give a different description

I didn't know that; the term is very common in the bird literature. I replaced with "Eurasia and Africa".

Territoriality

• "However, in Kansas and Oklahoma": you can drop the "however" and the sentence will be stronger

removed.

Breeding

• "The species lays 3 eggs on average, but clutch size ranges from 2 to 6 eggs": these should be in words, not numbers

done

• "around a fourth of daytime": is that a quarter?

yes, changed

• "chicks are cared for for 29 to...": to avoid the 'for for', you could reframe slightly to "chicks are looked after (or raised) for 29 to..."

OK, done.

Conservation

"30 m buffer zone": Add a conversion, maybe?

"30 m" is given twice in the article, and the first instance has the conversion.

That's my lot. Interesting article and fantastic pictures. – SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the review. All points addressed, please let me know if there is anything else I can do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nicely done - SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All of the licenses check out. Please add appropriate alt text to all of the images. File:Snowy Plovers (49522382536).jpg has a watermark in it that should be removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that removing watermarks can require a complicated analysis under Commons rules, so maybe it would just be best to find a different image without a watermark in it (see Meta:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I added the alt text. Regarding the watermark removal: Apparently there may be legal issues here [4], so I prefer not to. This particular watermark is quite unobtrusive I would say. According to the Commons proposal [5], it falls under "Visible watermarks", which are discouraged but not prohibited. This image is quite unique, I am not aware of any that could replace it. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note I cropped out the watermark from this [6] image from the same author some time ago. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But still, I don't think it is ideal to encourage editors to remove (unobtrusive) watermarks when this might potentially come with legal issues. I thought the "Image review" was for avoiding legal issues, not to generate them. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi [[User:Voorts|voorts], how is this one looking? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, there is one open issue/question regarding the watermark in File:Snowy Plovers (49522382536).jpg. As discussed above, removal of a watermark might come with legal problems. It therefore feels strange to me that removal of such watermarks is required (?) at FAC, because this animates editors to do something that might be legally doubtful (because if I had removed this watermark, there would not be any problem here). What is your opinion here? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jens, for what little it is worth, my reading of Meta:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images if pressed would be that in this case it is permissible. But it looks as if the issue has been resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Looks like your ping of me somehow got broken. The map in the infobox still needs alt text. Some of the images could use more specific alt text, such as noting where the bird is located (e.g., on a beach or standing on stones) and describing what the bird looks like. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Jens Lallensack, I don't think that removing the watermark is strictly required and I understand not wanting to remove it for the legal reasons that you and I have both noted. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done now, thanks! I hope this looks better now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voorts, apologies for messing up the ping. Is there anything left outstanding? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing left. Pass. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

I'll give this a look, though it is admittedly outside of my wheelhouse. TompaDompa (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• This appears to rely extremely heavily on Birds of the World. So much so that I start worrying about copyright issues.

  I am following the guidelines here, which ask me to rely on secondary sources whenever these are available, and to avoid citing primary sources such as papers when I could use a secondary source instead. We have plenty of FAs that are based on a single source only. I am open for citing more papers though.

Lead

• "This facultative polygamy" – I know what "facultative" means in this context, but I expect that most readers will not. Could it be rephrased using more plain language, considering that the lead is meant to be particularly accessible to readers?

  You made a good point. I don't know how to rephrase this, so I just deleted the word; it would be clear from the previous sentence that they are not completely polygamous.

Taxonomy and systematics

• "Joseph Grinnell, who attempted to locate the holotype in 1931, suggested that Dresser might not have been aware of the significance of the specimen and gave it elsewhere." – inconsistent verb tense.

  Apologies, I am not a native speaker. I tried to fix this, could you check if I got it right this time?

• "most of this research was carried out on western North American populations, with few monitoring programs targeting the eastern North American and South American populations" – I would swap that last part around ("South American and eastern North American") to avoid the possible reading "eastern North American and [eastern] South American".

  Done.

• "the most speciose genus" – I know this was changed from "specious", but I would really like to suggest going with plain "species-rich". That's a term that will be understood by all readers without consulting a dictionary (or making an educated guess), and I don't think any accuracy or precision in terminology would be lost.

  Done, yes, you are right. I am sometimes not sure which terms will be readily understood by native speakers and which are more difficult.

• "However, a 2013 genetic analysis found that the lapwings are nested within Charadrius; the latter is therefore polyphyletic (not a natural group)." – I'm fairly sure I understood this (the most distantly related Charadrius species are more closely related to lapwings than to each other), but it's not terribly easy to parse. I think this needs to be clarified either with words or a visual aid.

  You got it right. I tried to explain more, and linked "natural group" to taxon so that the reader can learn more about that.

  I would have thought that "natural group" referred to clade rather than taxon here, but maybe that's my mistake. At any rate, I think this is a good place to use an explanatory footnote (immediately following the semicolon) that says something along the lines of "In other words, the most distantly related Charadrius species are more closely related to lapwings than to each other." TompaDompa (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, "clade" is even more precise, changed to that. I also added your explanation, which is correct and clear.

• "snowy plovers also differ from Kentish plovers in being smaller, having shorter tarsi and wings, in their chick plumages, as well as in the advertisement calls of the males" – "in" is used for the first, third, and fourth item in this four-item list, but not the second. That tripped me up.

  I tried to re-phrase with "having"; hope this works.

Description

• "the snowy plover differs from these species in its black and slender bill (shorter and thicker in piping plover and longer and thicker in Wilson's Plover)" – it's a bit odd to mention that the snowy plover's bill is black in this context, considering no mention is made of the other species having a different colour.

  Added now.

• "these include, amongst others" – redundant phrasing.

  Fixed.

• "Chicks give a "peep" call from up to two days before hatching" – before hatching?

  Yes, they communicate with their parents while still in the egg! Amazing birds. Should I add "while still in the egg" for extra clarity even if this is redundant?

  Yes, I think so. I'm probably not going to be the last person to come across this and think "surely that's an error?". TompaDompa (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Added.

Distribution and habitat

• "Breeding has been recorded at elevations up to 3,048 m (10,000 ft)." – that's a rather conspicuous conversion, as 3,048 meters is exactly 10,000 feet. Was the original figure in feet?

  Very true. Possibly it needs a "|sigfig=2". Gog the Mild (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Birds of the World gives it in meters, but cites an older paper for that which I cannot locate. I would assume, then, that that original paper was in feet. I changed to "3,000 m (9,800 ft)", which is the rounding the template provides.

Behavior and ecology

• "An analysis of feces from a coastal population of California during breeding season revealed 72% beetles, 44% flies, and 25% insect larvae." – what do these percentages mean (they do not add up to 100%)? Is it that 72% of samples contained beetles, 44% contained flies, and 25% contained insect larvae? If so, this should be clarified.

  Oh right, very good spot. I completely missed this. Fixed now.

• "Snowy plovers are facultative polygamous" – ungrammatical. They are either facultatively polygamous or facultative polygamists (but I don't think I've ever heard non-human species described as "polygamists").

  Of course. Changed to "facultatively".

• "hypotheses include [...], amongst others" – redundant phrasing.

  Fixed.

  Still there. TompaDompa (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah I see, that was another instance of "amongst others". Removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Under hot conditions greater 40 °C (104 °F), the male and female take turns every hour or less to prevent overheating." – to prevent overheating themselves or the eggs?

  themselves. I changed to "avoid" to make this a little clearer. (It does not make a difference for the temperature of the eggs whether the male or female sits on them)

  Might add a link to heat stroke, heat illness, or hyperthermia, whichever is most appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reconsidering this, I decided to remove "to prevent overheating". This is implied by the source, but not directly stated, and I think the sentence is clear without such explanation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: "every hour or less" – a bit clunky. I might say "at least once per hour" or something similar. TompaDompa (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status and conservation

• "As of 2020, the global population is estimated at 24,000 to 31,000 individuals. The North American population has been estimated at 25,869; the population in and around the Gulf of Mexico at 36,000 to 38,000; and the South American population at 8,000 to 10,000 individuals." – these figures are obviously contradictory. How come?

  The total is mature individuals only, the other counts include juveniles as well. Specified this now (I should have done this from the start).

  There was an additional number error, which I fixed now, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "habitat losses due to the trapping of sediments by dams and jetties" – I would at least link Jetty.

  Done.

Ping Jens Lallensack. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thank you very much, these are all excellent comments that really made a big difference! All addressed, let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. I have not checked the sourcing and am not sufficiently familiar with the topic to be able to tell whether the article is well-researched, comprehensive, and neutral, but it looks good. I would also really like for somebody with more familiarity with the topic and/or copyright to take a look at the heavy reliance on Birds of the World to make sure it's okay. TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by query[edit]

• References: you have all article tiles in sentence case, which is good. Except for bird names: "Snowy Plover", "Lapwings". Why? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common bird names are often capitalized, but Wikipedia choose to write them in lower case. I now changed them to lower case for consistency. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim[edit]

Gog the Mild asked me to have a look in view of the concerns raised by TompaDompa. I believe that I would struggle to find any significant content that's missing from this text. I looked specifically for parasites and diseases, often omitted from bird articles, but that's covered here too. Although I understand TompaDompa's concern, I think that if you have access to HBW it's bound to be a major source, especially as this extensive species account was updated as recently as this October. I checked several of the references to HBW, particularly where it was the only source for the relevant text, and I couldn't see anything that raised concerns regarding close paraphrasing.

The text has been well picked over by others, and the only issue I picked up was that wikilinking is a bit inconsistent and sometimes lacking. We have Washington linked in the text, but California and Texas only in image captions, and Kansas and Oklahoma nowhere. I think I would have linked Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean and iris, at least. Nevertheless, this more than meets the standard, happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing! I reworked the wikilinks, hope that looks good now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no other concerns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:09, 20 December 2023 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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