Talk:Alpine chough/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi Jim, I'll be doing this review. I'll make a first pass through the article and do a general copyedit, boldly fixing anything I see as not contentious (although feel free to revert or discuss if you disagree), and a then second time focusing more on content and references. Sasata (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Did a minor copyedit and added a few links, but in general it looks very good. A few comments:


 * "The juvenile is duller than the adult with a horn-coloured bill..." What color is a horn?
 * changed to dull yellow jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "... and it has stronger feet." I find it unusual that this is mentioned... please explain why this is important.
 * The two subspecies are very similar, and this is the only difference apart from size given by the source jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I guess I thought it sounded odd because I'm assuming that it's not the typical characteristic a birder would be looking for in the field? Are these stronger feet beneficial or account for any differences in behavior? Sasata (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The clutch is 3–5 glossy whitish eggs, 33.9 x 24.9 mm (1.33 x 0.98 in) in size" Are these the numbers used in the source? Seems a stretch to give the metric dimensions at three sig figs. Seems like the measurement 1⅓ by 1 inch was converted to metric and then back again, but an extra decimal place was inserted.
 * The metric measurements are from the source, which normally quotes to 3 sig figs. I would be surprised if an English professional ornithologist was measuring in inches, but I suppose it's possible. I've added averaging to text, do you think I should round to 34X25? jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it some more, I realize they would have used a caliper to measure the dimensions, so the 0.1 mm precision is real. But the way the sentence reads to me, it's implied that all eggs are exactly that size, with no room for variation. Sasata (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...and in a further 29–31 days." The way its phrased, it's not quite clear to me if this means a "total of 29–31" or "29–31 days (in addition to the original 14-21). Also, is the range that exact? Would it be ok to say "in about 4 weeks"?
 * A word (fledge) has fallen out, now ...and fledge in a further 29–31 days from hatching. The range is as in source, fledging times are more predictable than incubation. I can't see what is gained by changing from days to weeks, esp as four weeks implies an average time shorter than that stated jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought about it some more and it's a non-issue. Sasata (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "the windows of a dam, pot-holes" a dam has windows?
 * Not with glass, but it's simpler to remove than explain jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Alpine Chough lays about one month later than its relative," lays eggs?
 * lays its eggs jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The similarities between the two species presumably arise because of the same strong environmental constraints on breeding behaviour." arise or arose?
 * well spotted, arose jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What was climate change in the lede is global warming in the Status section.. what phrase does the source use?
 * The source's title says "climate change", but it's clear that the context is global warming (which is in the "key words" list) also, the abstract says climate-induced changes in actual distributions ranged from 1.3% (1.1◦ C warming) to 30.0% (6.4◦ C warming) of these species. Worldwide, every degree of warming projected..., so it's quite clear that in this context the two terms do not contradict each other. I've changed the capitalisation of the source to conform with MoS jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Later I'll check some citations and recent literature. Sasata (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this, I'd like eventually to get it to join Red-billed Chough at FA, so give it as hard a time as you like. Thanks for the copyedits, I'm happy with the changes. jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is well-written; article complies with MOS.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
 * Well-referenced to reliable sources. I checked a few random refs that were available on-line and they were fine.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Coverage is broad and thorough, comparable to many FA-level bird articles.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images have appropriate free use licenses.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

A nice job, the article easily passes the GA-criteria. I offer you my FAC comments in advance: Sasata (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

MOS cleanup required in the refs:
 * refs 7, 9, 20, 25, 32, 42 have too many p's
 * inconsistent page range style, eg. refs 10 and 12
 * ref 13, 29, 33, 43(x2) ndash;
 * ref 19 no ending period
 * inconsistent period after authors name, eg. 30 and 32

The coverage of the topic is currently very good, and approaches FA level already. However, additional reference to some of these recent studies would enhance the coverage, and I hope you find some of them useful on your FA quest.

Title: New fossil records of choughs genus Pyrrhocorax in the Canary Islands: hypotheses to explain its extinction and current narrow distribution Author(s): Rando, JC Source: ARDEOLA  Volume: 54   Issue: 2   Pages: 185-195   Published: 2007
 * discusses fossil records of Pyrrhocorax; offers scenarios for current distribution

Title: Vocalizations and morphology: interpreting the divergence among populations of Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax and Alpine Chough P-graculus Author(s): Laiolo, P; Rolando, A; Delestrade, A, et al. Source: BIRD STUDY  Volume: 51   Pages: 248-255   Part: 3   Published: NOV 2004

Title: Tourism, mountain huts and distribution of corvids in the Bavarian Alps, Germany Author(s): Storch, I; Leidenberger, C Source: WILDLIFE BIOLOGY  Volume: 9   Issue: 4   Pages: 301-308   Published: 2003

Apparently, these birds eat crocuses, but you'd have to read German to find out why: Title: Alpine choughs feeding on crocus flowers and the physiological significance of this behaviour. Author(s): Glutz von Blotzheim, Urs N.; Borleis, Frank; Riggenbach, Alfred Source: Ornithologische Beobachter  Volume: 97   Issue: 4   Pages: 303-306   Published: Dezember 2000

Foraging strategy in a social bird, the alpine chough: effect of variation in quantity and distribution of food Author(s): Delestrade, A Source: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR  Volume: 57   Pages: 299-305   Part: 2   Published: FEB 1999

Title: A comparative analysis of the foraging behaviour of the Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax and the Alpine Chough Pyrrhocorax graculus coexisting in the Alps Author(s): Rolando, A; Laiolo, P; Formica, M Source: IBIS  Volume: 139   Issue: 3   Pages: 461-467   Published: JUL 1997

The influence of flocking on the foraging behaviour of the chough (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax) and the Alpine chough (P-graculus) coexisting in the Alps Author(s): Rolando, A; Laiolo, P; Formica, M Source: JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY  Volume: 242   Pages: 299-308   Part: 2   Published: JUN 1997