Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red-billed Chough

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 01:35, 10 April 2008.

[edit] Red-billed Chough

Self nom I'm nominating this article for featured article because there have been major improvements since GA Jimfbleak (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• See also section usually goes before the references

All links check out with the link checking tool.The link tool said two timed out, but they worked for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I must have read it dozens of times without that registering - done now, Jimfbleak (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC). Link checker gave zero errors straight off for me. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - time to give it the final once-over...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The lead needs to be 2-3 paras. The 4 paras currently look rather slim anyway. I'd combine myself but was undecided where to do so so I'll leave it up to you Jim :)
• I'd stick in a mention of its habitat in the lead too which is missing (?)
• 86 to 210 thousand individuals - I think 000 reads better than 'thousand' here.
• Predators include the Peregrine Falcon, Golden Eagle and Eurasian Eagle-owl, and the Common Raven will take nestlings - My preference would be for a "while" after the comma to separate the second clause. I'll ask Tony. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Choughs can also carry external mites, - there are internal mites? why not just in their feathers?
• These low levels of infestation can be contrasted with those of some other passerine groups; - not exactly sure what is meant here. Do you mean they are comparable?
• However, the European range has declined and fragmented due to the loss of traditional pastoral farming, persecution and perhaps disturbance, - not exactly sure what is meant by the last word here, habitat disturbance?

Disturbance is usually a reference to being disturbed at the nest, causing a bird to abandon it, but can also mean disturbance at roosting or feeding sites, resulting in obtaining insufficient food or rest. A big problem for roosting shorebirds and colonial seabirds. It could possibly use explaining here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Caliber and Sabine for the bits they fixed, I've done the others now. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Sod it if Jim won't support mine I won't support his - just joking. I only contributed a tiny bit to this. Sandy/Raul you can stick a "moral" in front my support if anyone feels there is a COI among us birdos...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Birdos? I thought you were dinos, fungos, felinos, planetos, medicos ... . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• all of the above...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Birds are dinosaurs, or so WP:DINO keep insisting as they try and take credit for our work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've added some refs and expanded the lead a bit (it could possibly use a little more), but good stuff, now that there isn't a carpet of them from Spain to China! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tweaked the intro a bit for flocking, let me know if anything else significant missed. I'm still doing my remedial maths lessons (: Jimfbleak (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Some minor issues
  • which is usually in a cave -> would cavity be better ?
  • subject to predation and parasites - > parasitism
  • The Chough, which derived its common name from the Jackdaw -> slight change to suggest that humans give it a common name
  • during the last ice age, was described in 1875 - > missing "and" to read as "and was"
  • with small races having higher frequency calls than large forms -> "smaller"... "larger" forms
  • optimal feeding habitat is short grass -> suggest preferred to optimal
  • they are spotted, not always densely, with various shades of brown and grey on a creamy -> suggest "in" rather than "with"
  • parents share the feeding and nest sanitation duties -> suggest dropping "the"
  • The breeding success of the Chough ....much higher... because ....a lower percentage of nest failures -> not a cause effect explanation
  • areas also link the original montane nuclei -> suggest "nuclei" replacement with "core areas"

Shyamal (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Raise fire!

Done Jimfbleak (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support ready to fly. Shyamal (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I agree that "elevation" is better than "level" too, and a nice image . Which ssp (:  ? Jimfbleak (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought of cliff-face as the right word but got lost in the meantime, but thats how having more eyes and minds help. The image is drawn from a Spanish bird, but I have stylized a few curves. A chough call would be a good thing to add. Shyamal (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing GFDL I can find, but the RSPB external link includes a recording of the call. I don't know if its possible to link it with the appropriate section, since you're not supposed to have ext links referenced in the body of the article Jimfbleak (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Overall this looks great. Just one question: why isn't it Red-billed Chough through the whole article? MeegsC | Talk 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The BOU official name is Chough,[1], and a quick check through the reference titles, where a species name is given, has Chough (10), Cornish Chough (2) and Red-billed Chough (4). Its not a big deal though, if you prefer Red-billed, I'm quite happy with that.Jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also favour Red-billed Chough. I understand that the qualifier is not needed within Britain where the other species is absent. Shyamal (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's done Jimfbleak (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Have a look at the recent Emperor Penguin promotion to see the standard of prose we expect.

• Please look at the relationships between the clauses in your writing. The opener is: "The Red-billed Chough or Chough (pronounced /ˈtʃʌf/ chuff), Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, is a bird in the crow family, one of only two species in the genus Pyrrhocorax." So is it the RBC or the crow family that is one of only two species ...?
• Sigh ... no hyphen after "-ly"—"widely-spread".
• "cliff face"—no hyphen necessary, I think.
• "which have led to a population decline and range fragmentation in Europe"—remove "a"?
• This is too short for a paragraph and too long and winding for a sentence: ""Chough" was originally an alternative onomatopoeic name for the Jackdaw, Corvus monedula, based on its call, and the similar red-billed species, formerly particularly common in Cornwall, became known initially as "Cornish Chough" and then just "Chough", the name transferring from one species to the other." I'm dizzy. Then another parastub after it.
• "with two isolated populations in the Ethiopian Highlands"—from the map, it looks as though Spain is also isolated thus.
• Range: no space after the en dash.
• "and mainly between 2,400 and 3,000 metres (7,950– 9,840 ft) in the Himalayas, although in the latter range it reaches 6,000 metres (19,650 ft) in the summer"—Range means mountain range? Confusing as you have numerical ranges here. "Latter" is inelegant if you can avoid it. Reword? "Mainly" is illogical, since there's an "although" clashing with it.

Please don't just correct these glitches. The whole text needs attention by fresh eyes. TONY (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

All above done. I've rolled up the two short paras in taxonomy as you indicated, even though they don't appear to be particularly closely linked. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2008

Apologies, after posting the above, I realised that in the course of tab-switching I failed to save some of the changes - done now Jimfbleak (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the whole of the rest of the text again, trimming and chopping extensively. Please let let me know what else needs needs doing to address your concerns. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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