I'll review this. This is my second GA review and the first bird, so it may take a while. I will try to do a thorough job, rather than a cursory overview and simple pass. The article looks good on first glance. My concerns will follow. Once they are addressed, please comment as such and I will strike out the concern. --Gaff (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There are seven subspecies mentioned in the taxonomy section, but they are not in the infobox. There seems to be some discre If the infobox gets cluttered, you can make the list collapsible. (See the list of synonyms on Camas pocket gopher for an example). I will read more on the taxonomy and expand on any recs here.
Y. Finished. LeftAire (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The synonyms for the bird can be added to the taxobox as well. These include Sylvia Ludovicianus and Motacilla troglodytes (are there others?). Odd that the initial name appears to be Motacilla troglodytes from Gmelin, but he is not listed as species authority in some sources. The book you reference by Brewer mentions both, but the IUCN lists only Latham.
Y. Done. LeftAire (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The article by Mann has some nice cladograms. Figure 3 might make a nice addition/illustration for this article. You or I could make a request at User:IJReid/sandbox/Cladogram request for a cladogram if you think it would help. :::Y. Thanks! LeftAire (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"Severe winters can severely limit" is a lot of severity all in one place...:::Y. A severe error indeed. LeftAire (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"The preference living habitat is either dense coverage or abandoned buildings." ?? The lead maybe needs some attention...
Y.
This citation template should be completed, formatting should be fixed. <ref name="Carolina or White-browed Wren (Thryothorus [ludovicianus or albinucha])">{{cite web|title=Carolina or White-browed Wren (Thryothorus [ludovicianus or albinucha])|url=http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?lang=EN&avibaseid=CB5469E1211E7EFF|accessdate=16 February 2015}}</ref>
Y. Fixed, I think... LeftAire (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
What is the source data for the distribution map? Has it been updated since the taxonomy underwent recent updates?Would you do the honors of using the map from the iucn redlist site to replace the current one? If so, that would be great! LeftAire (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Please expand and clarify the taxonomy section. The lead reports that is the only member of the Thryothorus genus, but this is not clarified in the taxonomy section. In fact, the taxonomy section seems to contradict it with the reference to a the Mann paper. That seems to be a very important article, shedding a great deal of light on the taxonomy, but it is referenced only once and in passing.
Y My bad. LeftAire (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
All information in the lead needs to be mentioned in the article, with a citation.
Y Was a bit confused at first, but seems to be fine now. LeftAire (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous places in the article where it changes from singular to plural, is/are type changes. These are happening sometimes within same sentence, as well as paragraph to paragraph. Please read through and fix. Would aim for consistently either one or the other, no preference.
Y Should be okay now (I hope)... LeftAire (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
consider adding this to the "In Culture" section?
Could you request the table? Here's the direct link for the page: Mann Wren Table
As for the map of the article, it appears to be very similar to the one on the IUCN website. Here's the link: Thryothorus ludovicianus distribution
I'll add the citations for the front page soon. I'm going to check back on another GA article I nominated in the meantime. Thanks for the suggestions. I'm trying to work out kinks on the subdivision/subspecies parts on the infobox as of now. LeftAire (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Round two
It's coming along. Hang in there!
"The male also takes responsibility in performing songs in order to protect its territory." -- this sentence feels odd and abrupt where it stands in the article. The entire lead paragraph could use some finesse, maybe submit to WP:GOCE after this GA is complete, if planning to take to FA.
Y. For now anyway...LeftAire (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"The bird is monogamous and once it finds it mate and territory, it will usually reside in that territory for life." grammar.
"These wrens have multiple broods in a breeding season, but can fall victim to parasitism to cowbirds." -- grammar: by cowbirds?
Also, might be worth a sentence to mention brood parasitism. If your source mentioned the species, it might be interesting. My guess it that it is the Brown-headed cowbird. The article on entire cowbird genus is not developed... Just a thought.Confused. Do you want me to elaborate on what brood parasitism is? I changed Cowbird parasitism and just linked Brood parasitism. And yes, it is the Brown-headed cowbird.
"has populations that have been" -- is a lot of passive voice and could be sharper. Again, this might be okay for GA, but should be fixed if moving to FA.:::Y. LeftAire (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
* The Taxonomy section is much improved. Why, thank you.... LeftAire (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Question: can you clarify "Male sexual dimorphism" as opposed to just "sexual dimorphism" ?
Photographs clearly illustrating the dimorphism would be great, if available. Maybe identify in captions of images on the page what sex of bird is present.
That's going to be a potential issue for the time being, unfortunately. The only photograph that is available of both sexes at the same time makes it hard to differentiate the two sexes. I could make a guess, but that's not appropriate for this section.... LeftAire (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"There has been occasional vagrants" -- there have been?
Y Fixed.
"Cactus wrens can adapt to various habitats." Carolina wrens?? You refer several times to cactus wrens throughout the article. Just a typo or did you reference the wrong bird?
Y It was the former, and definitely a head-banging moment. LeftAire (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Round three
Licensing on all media appears valid, though the map is wonky still. (I think that the actual map itself needs to be sourced to some verifiable place, not just the data. That is an area of copyright that is beyond my payscale, however...
Did you want me to make a new map for the page? I'm happy to do so and can use clear sources that should not cause any issue if you plan to go to FA. Just let me know, maybe leave a note here User:Gaff/Map request if you have specific thoughts. Or I can just do what I did with the other bird maps.::Yeah, the more accurate link is on the IUCN page, the first citation on the page (on the infobox). I provided a link during the first stage of the review. LeftAire (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, will do the map. Meanwhile, please give the article a read through once more for grammatical issues, since it will help us get to a GA pass sooner. If there are still many problems, we might need to submit to WP:GOCE before it passes, or I can do some work on it, then we ask for a second opinion to pass it for GA. I'm still new at reviewing, so not sure how that works. --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I've looked over the article, and everything seems to be okay. I'll re-read again, but I'll leave the rest of the process to you. LeftAire (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This image File:Carolina Wren1.jpg has the watermark of the photographer's name in the lower left corner. With a that with a CC2.0 license, you can "Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material." Which means you can airbrush out that watermark. Ask here Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop and somebody will take care of it. It might then be an even better image than the one in the taxobox, but I will let you make that call.
In the process of being completed. LeftAire (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"In certain habitats where mercury contamination is in the water sources, Carolina wrens are more likely to have higher concentrations of it in its body due to its heavy reliance on spiders and its non-migratory habits." Oh my... Please review this whole section for grammatical errors. :::Y. I hate my writing sometimes. LeftAire (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Genetically monogamous is misspelled. Maybe find some way to wikilink or define in the text genetic and social monogamy, for the general reader.
Y Fixed.
Not quite. I changed the spelling. Maybe still could link or better define the different types of monogamy. --Gaff (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"The clutch size is generally size is":::Y. LeftAire (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"The incubation period is handled by the female and it lasts for 12–16 days." --> The eggs are incubated by the female for 12-16 days.
"Males showing quality to their spouse is thought to play a major role, however, mate change in the species is rare." This sentence feels odd and not sure how it fits rest of paragraph.:::Y Removed. LeftAire (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"When on the ground, it will move " I think should be they will move. Since the prior sentence was Carolina wrens... There are still a few areas where singular/plural fluctuate from sentence to sentence.
Y, I think....LeftAire (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"The courting and antagonistic encounters that involve the tail fanning and wing drooping was suggested to be a possible signaling use." Needs copyediting for clarity.
Y, I hope...LeftAire (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"Age and life experience are not thought of as significant due to their relatively short lifespan and sedentary lifestyle." Needs copyediting for clarity.
The Distribution section/paragraph should be expanded. Right now, it only describes some outlier areas (mild winters, etc), and areas where vagrants might appear. The core region is not really explicitly mentioned. It would be good to consolidate a description of the entire range, possibly briefly mention again the information about subspecies distributions, but avoid being overly redundant.
Y Expanded as such. LeftAire (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
"which can sound burred and slurry." These terms seem odd. Typo?
YSurprisingly it isn't. But I've changed it anyway. LeftAire (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably just terms that I am not as familiar with, due to regional language differences (or more likely my own ignorance). Maybe keep it how it was? Or whatever you think best. Now that I actually took time to look up the words, "burred" makes sense, but I am not clear on "slurry" unless it means "slurred" --Gaff (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It's fine. I actually a bit confused with the term 'burred' used in that context when I had first saw it. LeftAire (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Spot check: The paragraph on nest construction (Carolina_wren#Breeding) starting with "The nest is generally a dome-shaped..." may be a little close to close paraphrasing. I'm not an expert on close paraphrasing, but @Nikkimaria: is, so I will politely ask for an opinion. The source infomration is the second paragraph on this page [1]. Thank you. --Gaff (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the wording is a bit close there, and this problem is not unique to that source - this one from the preceding paragraph is quite close as well, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Y Fixed (I hope). LeftAire (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Second opinion request -- This article has come a long way. Some concerns of close paraphrasing and some other concerns with the prose/copy-editing have been noted above. I am going to request a more experienced reviewer to weigh in, since this is only my second review and is not a clear cut pass or fail. --Gaff (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Does Virginia have a mercury contamination problem? It seems difficult to follow the paragraph without that essential background bit (this might be obvious to someone in the US perhaps but not to someone from outside it, me) Shyamal (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Y Can't speak for all of Virginia, but I did add the two rivers used in the study as a footnote for clarifications' sake. LeftAire (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
"There are noted differences among the subspecies." - redundant mostly - they wouldn't be subspecies if they did not differ. The following section is missing out entirely on distribution ranges as is the map. Shyamal (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Pardon? Do you want me to re-list the subspecies ranges in the Habitat and distribution pages? I placed them on the Taxonomy section, and I didn't want to be redundant. I fixed the 'noted differences' part, but do you want a different map?. LeftAire (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ok, my bad. The distributions in the taxonomy section are fine. The map is fine but putting the core subspecies positions on a single map would be slightly easier on the eye. I am not sure if there is source map with the fine delineations / overlap zones. Shyamal (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
if a source map can be found I can make a map showing subspecies distribution. However, the current map is certainly adequate for Good Article status. --Gaff (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Shyamal It's okay. I actually agree with you, It's just finding a map that shows the subspecies ranges is the big problem. @Gaff Don't worry about the map. If I could find that map, it would be great, but isn't likely right now. LeftAire (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
(Lead) "The preferred living quarters are either dense coverage or abandoned buildings" - habitat is generally preferred to "living quarters". The "abandoned buildings" here give an entirely different impression from what is actually said later in the main text.
(Description) "Male sexual dimorphism is prevalent in this species." - this is incorrect usage - a species is sexually dimorphic - not one sex. But is there a plumage difference? Is the size difference readily visible? If not I would suggest that we indicate that the dimorphism is slight and only in size.
(Taxonomy) Lomita is a place (Lomita Ranch according to the description) which means the subspecies would be Lomita wren rather than Lomita's wren.
(Lead) The subspecies probably does not differ in habitat - only distribution range.
(Overall) I think the text has too much "tense" and "mood" variation - most of the WP:BIRD GA/FA articles use the indicative mood without so much of the modal verb form.
If you think the article cannot be improved to have the verbs presented an indicative mood variation more frequently within a decent amount of time, I can accept the article as a failure. I think that I could fix the tense within a day or two. However, I won't be able to tackle this article again until tomorrow. LeftAire (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Take your time, also I am hoping that some more eyes from WP:BIRD can look over this. This is very differently written from the usual GAs within the project and the onus of conforming to standards should not be entirely on you. Shyamal (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
(Taxonomy) The synonymy is incorrect and uses an inappropriate source (a field guide) - a taxonomic source like Peter's checklist would be appropriate and Gmelin's name is not even listed there - spellings are also important - "Sylvia ludoviciana Latham, 1790"
I would like to request that the Gmelin reference be placed back onto the page. I've found a more appropriate source that lists Gmelin that did make reference to the wren as Motacilla troglodytes in 1788 Thryothorus ludovicianus ludovicianus. Perhaps the field guide was an improper source, but isn't wrong. LeftAire (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, here is another source of ornithologist Charles Lucien Bonaparte (apparently from him) discussing Gmelin's error of placing the bird under the grouping of European wrens Troglodytes. LeftAire (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The name Motacilla troglodytes is actually that of Linnaeus and is based on the European wren. Gmelin's error in identification would not make it a synonym (at best it would be a chresonym and is best mentioned in text and not listed under the synonyms). It might be ok to mention that he made an error (without marking Gmelin as a taxon author) but you would have to check the literature carefully to see if the error was that of Gmelin or of someone else yes, it says here that Gmelin considered the American bird as a variety of the European wren and followed by Alexander Wilson as in this book. Shyamal (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I have corrected this bit. Shyamal (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I added the Gmelin information as a footnote. I'm not sure how I'll use the information given. I suppose that I could use the links as other names listed for the Carolina wren (I see Great Carolina Wren appearing), though I'm not sure it's necessary. As for the article overall, do you still want other users for WPBirds to read this? I was tempted to make those tense changes, but I didn't want to jump the gun. LeftAire (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Please go ahead with the changes, no permissions needed from me or anyone else. Shyamal (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've made some more corrections. Hopefully the article is up to par, or at the very least close to it. LeftAire (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
A.C. Bent's work on the life of wrens is an important source - available here
Pages 205 to 216 are about Carolina Wren and a few subspecies. Plates 37 and 38 have images of the nests. Those images should be Public Domain, since this was published by the US Goverment. I think they would help illustrate the article, since there is currently no image of a nest, only one of a box. The text has a lot of useful info as well. --Gaff (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll attempt to add information from Bent sometime today. Where would I go to find the pictures. I had a computer application that I could use with the cropping images from websites or books, re-name it, and use GoogleImages in order to find a better picture/resolution, but it's no longer on my laptop for some odd reason. Is there a public domain site from where I can retrieve those images? I think that this image would help, too: Plate IX A history of North American Birds... LeftAire (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No software is needed to use the images as they are but only Linux and Windows allows the right button click to save page images from the Internet Archive. I have however extracted the heads and have uploaded it File:Thryothorus heads.jpgShyamal (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Y Added the picture. LeftAire (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have made many edits, please check that I have not altered any intended meanings. One statement however beats me and needs fixing - "Carolina wrens have retaliated against female cowbirds gave birth to nestlings the wrens have raised." Shyamal (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Removed it. I'll attempt to find other sources to expand it later if this passes as a GA. LeftAire (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The article has improved significantly in my opinion. The only improvements (not GA requirements) possible are for certain life-history and descriptive details to be better sourced, preferably from ornithological monographs or works of that genre rather than field guides. It also helps greatly if someone a North American bird enthusiast can check to see if something more obvious has been glossed over. Shyamal (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Clarifications
Taxidermied Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova specimen, mislabeled "California"
Although Baird and Elliott Coues were involved in early assessments of the genus, according to Allen neither ever saw a specimen of the camas pocket gopher (T. bulbivorus).[1] Allen obtained and examined two large adults (male and female) collected in Beaverton, Oregon in May 1890[1] which were considerably larger and darker than previously examined specimens.[2] Skull features and white markings around the mouth and anus also differed.[2] His findings and the specimen-collection location helped identify the camas pocket gopher as a species separate from California gophers.[2] The California specimens were classified by Eydoux and Gervais as Oryctomys bottae, now known as Thomomys bottae (Botta's pocket gopher).[2] They were found near Monterey, California, over 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) south of the now-recognized range of the Camas pocket gopher.[2]
The distribution of Elliot's "great pocket gopher" (as it was known) extended along the California coast "north of San Francisco."[3] James Audubon and John Bachman reassesed the taxonomy on the camas pocket gopher in the late 1800s. They referred it as "camas rat" and altogether rejected Diplostoma as a genus. They did so because they considered the specimen examined by Richardson to have been seriously damaged by drying out. that combine what was considered two separate species: Pseudostoma borealis and Diplostoma bulbivorum. Based on observations of taxidermy specimens in Europe, they suggested that Townsend's pocket gopher (Geomys (Thomomys) townsendii) belonged to the same species.[4] In 1875 it was reported as a sub-species of the northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides),[5] and during the 1920s H. M. Wight referred to it as the "Willamette Valley gopher".[6]
^ abAllen 1893, p. 56. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAllen1893 (help)
