Talk:American kestrel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Intelligent  sium  00:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC) This is a nice article. Comments:
 * Lead section
 * The lead section begins using "it" (singular), but suddenly switches to "they" in the third paragraph
 * Fixed
 * "It is the only kestrel found in the Western Hemisphere, though is a very rare vagrant to western Europe.": the relationship between these two ideas needs to be clearer
 * switched from though to and. Is this okay?
 * I apologize if I was unclear in the comment: what I meant to say was that the first part (being the only kestrel in the western hemisphere) does not preclude its occurrence in the eastern hemisphere (in addition, part of western Europe is in the western hemisphere).
 * Now that I think about it, the western Europe part isn't necessary. I've removed it and clarified the wording.
 * "It is the most common falcon in North America, as it can live in a wide variety of habitats": the word "common" implies highest population, which is not directly related to habitat
 * I don't see how it isn't related. A species that can only live in a specific biome would probably be less common than one that can live in many. Anyway, I can't think of a way to clarify that. Do you have a suggestion?
 * That's my point: "A species that can only live in a specific biome would probably be"; this is not for certain, but the word "as" implies that it is. I've changed it, let me know what you think
 * I've changed it to "and it can live".
 * "Juveniles are similar to the adults": Similar in what ways? (be brief, or alternatively delete)
 * Added in plumage
 * In the lead section you have "It is the only kestrel found in the Americas.", but you don't seem to mention this in the body
 * Added
 * Unfortunately the statement is not sourced within the body.
 * Cited
 * Description
 * Under Description, both stating that it is the size of a thrush and then comparing it to a specific thrush ("such as the American Robin (Turdus migratorius)") distracts from the main topic
 * Removed robin mention
 * The statement "However, these subtle differences are often difficult to discern in the field." is not cited.
 * Removed
 * "Plumage has more variation between the sexes": More than what?
 * Added than size


 * Systematics
 * Under Systematics, the sentence "The American Kestrel's scientific name was given by Carolus Linnaeus in his 18th Century workSystema Naturae under the name Falco sparverius" is awkward
 * Reworded
 * Under Systematics: "Several other local names for the kestrel are also in use": "Colloquial names" or "common names" would probably be better terms
 * Fixed
 * Why do you have all the subspecies authorities in brackets?
 * I'm not sure; I'll remove the parentheses if it's a problem.
 * This is really a minor issue, but the list seems to be arranged in no particular order. Perhaps group subspecies by when they were described?
 * I listed them in same order as they were listed in the source. I believe they go (approximately) from north to south in distribution.
 * Ecology and behavior
 * Under Ecology and behavior: "Its distribution ranges from northern Canada and Alaska, down to the southernmost tip of South America, Tierra del Fuego.": That's an odd use of the word "distribution". Also, I don't particularly like the use of "down"—south is south, not "down"
 * Fixed
 * "The American Kestrel is able to live in very diverse conditions": Are there any examples of this other than elevation?
 * Expanded sentence
 * "Females are found in open areas more often than males during the non-breeding season. Explanations for this behavior include the two sexes utilizing their habitats differently, or the larger females arriving to the preferred habitat first and excluding males from their territory": These sentences are awkward
 * Rewrote
 * "This statistic is likely biased, however, as reported deaths are usually found near or in areas populated by humans." This statement is uncited
 * Moved ref; it includes the last statement also.
 * "The kestrel has an average mortality rate of 57%" This is not clear. What group does this apply to? Or, what are the conditions of this mortality rate?
 * I've added 'yearly', does that clear it up? I also fixed a few serious errors in that section, which may explain some things.
 * It is still unclear. To say that "the kestrel has an average yearly mortality rate of 57%", with no other information, indicates that 57% of the entire population die every year.
 * The source doesn't elaborate, unfortunately. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if that's true, given the average lifespan of 15 months.
 * Update: I removed the sentence, because I can't find a clarification.
 * Feeding
 * Under Feeding, "Part of the reason the Kestrel maintains high population densities is because it can eat a wide variety of both insects and vertebrates" is repetitive Never mind on this one, I've reworded it
 * I've changed the wording a bit; was that what you were looking for?
 * The sentence "For example, if a particular area falls below the average success rate for capturing prey, the bird will move to a different area" implies that the bird would know what "the average success rate for capturing prey" is
 * Reworded
 * Reproduction
 * Under Reproduction, the sentence "Pairs also usually return to previous nesting sites in consecutive years, since it would give birds an advantage over younger or invading individuals to already be familiar with the hunting grounds, neighbors, predators, and other features of the site" is awkward
 * Split sentence
 * Relationship with humans
 * Under Relationship with humans, "The American Kestrel's most significant relationship with humans is through falconry": "significant" is one of those "words to watch", as it is vague (significant in what way?) and may introduce a biased point-of-view or editorializing (which I don't think is the case here, but for future reference)
 * I'm trying to think of a way to change that while still getting the point across. Do you have a suggestion?
 * Update: reworded, is that better?
 * "scientists have gotten them to breed prematurely": Can you use a better word than "gotten"? It is not standard English. "Prematurely" here is also ambiguous: prematurely in terms of the time of year, or in terms of age?
 * I've reworded it. As for prematurely, the source doesn't specify and I can't find any other mentions of it. Would it be better if I remove 'prematurely' and only include 'more than once a year'?
 * Immediately after the preceding sentence, you end the section with "However, since all raptors are protected in the United States, it is illegal to posses [sic] one there without a permit", which does not relate directly to use in science.
 * Seperated
 * General
 * When you use the shorthand "The Kestrel", you need to be consistent about whether you capitalize the K
 * Fixed
 * Sometimes you use the shorthand "kestrel" for American Kestrel, but it may seem that you are referring to kestrels in general. This is more of a general impression I've gleaned, so I can't provide specific cases, but the more specific should be used whenever there is the possibility of confusion
 * This 'shorthand' is used in many bird FAs, including Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon, so I see no reason to change all of them unless you have specific examples where it is confusing.
 * I'm not saying we should change all of them, only the ones that may cause confusion. I'll fix this if I see it
 * Integers 1-10 should be spelled out unless followed by an abbreviated unit
 * Done
 * Reference 35 appears to be broken
 * Fixed
 * Some of the image captions are a bit curt. Alt text is not required for Good Articles, but will be if you plan to take this article further
 * I've added the location to one caption; not sure what else I can add.
 * is not the best as an external link. It contains advertising and instructions on how to build a birdhouse, which is outside the scope of a Wikipedia article
 * I've removed it, and added some other ones.

That concludes my initial read-through. Over the next few days I'll make some more in-depth comments regarding the article. Again, you did a good job with the article. Intelligent  sium  01:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the thorough review.— focus 23:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What's with all the subspecies authorities being put in parentheses? Were all the species actually initially described in a different genus? &mdash;innotata 14:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, no problems found, but a bit more could be said. A GA easily, but needs work for FA. &mdash;innotata 14:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is pretty much there. I'll check sources, images, MOS compliance and such, as well as giving a final read-through. Intelligent  sium  21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This article meets all the GA criteria. For 'book-keeping' purposes I am including a copy of the criteria below:
 * Congratulations! Intelligent  sium  21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you!— focus 21:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you!— focus 21:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)