Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antbird


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 19 October 2008.

Antbird

 * Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird  talk 

It gives me pleasure to present the latest WP:BIRD offering, Antbird. I was prompted to begin expanding the article after being impressed by the great photos of antbirds provided by Mdf (one of which is now featured) and subsequently found them to be a fascinating family that deserve to be better known outside the narrow field of ornithology. I feel the article has plenty of good references, some magnificent photos and the prose has been picked over by multiple eyes (for which I am very grateful). I hope you can support its elevation to the big time. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Sources look good, as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment—needs a copy-edit. Here are examples from the lead alone.
 * Start Para 2 with "As ...".
 * Remove "the" before "pattern".
 * You've already established "species" alone, so I'd not spell it out in the third para.
 * Feeding and stories/canopies: are you referring to individuals or species when you say "most"?

You're not realising that some things are unclear to those who are not so close to the subject matter. Tony  (talk)  05:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the last point, and I have had many people look through, though apparently not enough. I will make another pass and try and find more people to look through it. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by You've already established "species" alone, so I'd not spell it out in the third para.? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources and links look good. Might be nice to note the two links that would require a subscription. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On sources: I also looked at the sources and found 24 citation links to Handbook of the Birds of the World. That's quite a lot. I get nervous when I use a source for 5 citations. Can you explain why you depended so much on this source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes I can. This is an article about an entire family, not a single species, as such it needs to draw support for statements not just pertaining to individual species (which is the more usual focus of journal articles) and support sweeping statements about the family. Where possible I have supported these statements with journal articles, but there are circumstances where that is not possible, and HBW is the only treatment of the entire family that is comprehensive enough for the purposes of this article. I don't see this as being a problem when the series continues to receive accolade after accolade for its comprehensiveness, accuracy and depth, I consider it the best source available for writing family articles about birds. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction, there is another book that deals with the family, an out of print 1996 book which is undoubtedly good (the author is a major authority on the family) but is not in any of my local bookstores (and I don't think in the libraries either). Sabine's Sunbird  talk  23:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone with a fair level of background knowledge of the subject, I will turn it around: I would have been far more concerned if HBW vol. 8 had not been quoted widely in this article, as it - by far - is the most complete and comprehensive collection of information about this family. The book by Skutch, while excellent for its time, has become rather out-dated (the level of knowledge of this family has been greatly expanded since then), and, as could be expected considering the main author, primarily focuses on the Central American species (that's only ~1/10 of the species in this family). • Rabo³  • 09:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll add my opinion to confirm both SS and Rabo - HBW, and the HANZAB books for birds in my neck of the woods are terrific aggregations of the sum of knowledge to date and should form the basis of any bird Featured Article. Now to have a look... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too - multiple refs to HBW are essential and inevitable jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Support Oppose due to a few issues, the main one being missing content. --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Morphology. Although these antbirds are not notably colorful, aren't the females usually more colorful than the males, a notable reversal of the normal pattern of dimorphism in birds?
 * I wouldn't phrase it as a reversal of trends as they are both muted, but there is a sticking pattern (males tending to blacks and whites, females to browns and buffs) which I have now included. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi from NM-PLANTS, Una. Are you by any chance referring to the fact that in some genera, female plumages are more diagnostic of species than males? &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 05:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Systematics. From context, sometimes it is unclear what "the family" refers to:  Thamnophilidae, Formicariidae, or "expanded" Formicariidae (including Thamnophilidae?).
 * I have tried to clarify that. Better? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Breeding. There used to be considerable interest in the nests of certain antbirds, as a possible shared trait with ovenbirds.  Some other traits are of similar interest, eg the leaf tossing of some species.  This article needs a (brief) discussion of the phylogeny within the family, and of the family and its sibling taxa.  If the phylogeny is much in dispute, then a review of what points are and are not in dispute would be appropriate. (This would extend the Systematics section beyond the taxonomy that is given there now).
 * I will have to pick up some pages tomorrow to work on this, I had read about it but didn't really consider it essential. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick update, I am reading the stuff on this and thinking about how best to include it. I remain unconvinced that this article is the best place to discuss the phylogeny of the family in anything other than the broadest strokes as we have a detailed list of antbirds that can deal with many of the more detailed aspects of the relations within the family. It is a large family with a lot of uncertain relationships that is still being untangled. I'd appreciate further thoughts. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  05:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Such a discussion does not belong on list of antbirds. At present, this article does not achieve broad strokes re phylogeny in and of this interesting family.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am flexible about this and am not going to argue the point until I hear more from you on this, and where other people think it has to be too. I simply need to understand further where you think this article needs to be. There are over 200 species and 45 genera, some of which are polyphyletic. In some genera uncertainty abounds. Are you asking for a blow-by-blow account of where each genus stands? Does each of these genera needs supporting arguments for why it belongs where it is based on morphological, behavioural and genetic work? What level of resolution are you expecting? And why is LOA the wrong place for this? To my mind this is a lot of information that is of passing interest to most readers. Most readers (and quite frankly most editors) have no familiarity with the genera involved, and saying that Antbirdia is possibly closely related to Antshrikia 45 times is notable but perhaps too much information for this article. I'm not saying we shouldn't have this, I just am not convinced this is the best place for it. I am amenable to being convinced otherwise. And of course, this may not even be what you are asking for, which is why I am seeking the clarification. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  07:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing so elaborate. There are books about "ovenbirds and antbirds" yet this article does not mention how (if) the two groups are related.  See Ovenbird (family) for an example of a brief precis of the current understanding of a group's phylogeny.  --Una Smith (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Took me a while to catch on by I think I've got it now. Just need to deal with the nest bit. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have been reading more on the nests. The nesting similarities between closely related species and clades is suspected and supported anecdotally, but has not been subjected to a thorough review as it has for the ovenbirds. It is at present a promising avenue of future research Other behavioural clues to phylogeny have been examined but not over the whole family, and as such may serve to support or contradict morphological or genetic studies, but not yet suggest its own rival phylogeny. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Yes, that's the idea. The Systematics section is better now, but now I can see a problem with the article title, Antbird.  "Antbird" can refer to the Thamnophilidae, the Formicariidae sensu stricto, or the combined Formicariidae sensu lato.  In this article, "antbird" mostly refers to the Thamnophilidae, but in the Systematics section that still is not clear.  I have tried to make it clear in the first paragraph, but in the second paragraph there is at least one instance of "antbird" that I am almost sure refers to Formicariidae sensu lato.  Please do a sanity check of "antbird" throughout the article.  Also, consider renaming the article to something less ambiguous such as Antbird (typical) or Thamnophilidae, and making Antbird a disambiguation page.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose a move, as the ground antbirds seem destined to get split into antthrushes and antpittas, leaving the antbirds as the only group that retains the name, and I have a strong preference, where possible, to use the simplest name possible. I will do a run through and check that any mention of antbird means Thamnophilidae. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  06:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have modified the text. To make things easier to follow I have simply called the Formicariidae (in today's sense) the antthrushes and antpittas. I have also put in a sentence stating that any following use of antbird refers to the family Thamnophilidae. Hopefully this diminishes the confusion. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  06:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Systematics section still had some highly ambiguous grammatical refs and tortured syntax, so I worked it over. I think it reads better now, but please check that I did not introduce errors.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The change didn't introduce any errors; I removed the citation requested tag as it was the same study as the reference at the end of the preceding sentence. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It still bothers me that the article title is Antbirds. The family includes antwrens, ... antbirds, antshrikes. How about moving the article to Antbird family? --Una Smith (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We have the family article at cuckoo even though some are known as koels and coucals, parrot is the order article even though some are parakeets or conures or cockatoos, Old World babbler even though some are laughingthrushes or mesias or wren-babblers. A peppershrike is a viero, a shrike-tit is a whistler (probably) Rock Wren isn't actually a wren. Common names and common sense aren't always hand in hand, and like I said I think there is value in keeping article titles as simple as possible. And the common name for the family as a whole is antbird. A antwren is an antbird as much as a shoveler is a duck, a shag is a cormorant, a puffin or murre or auklet or guilemot is an auk, a triller is a cuckoo shrike, a go-away-bird is a turaco, a coot is a rail, a Fieldfare is a thrush or a Tui or a chat is a honeyeater. If there is a problem with this article is named as it is it goes way beyond just this article.   Sabine's Sunbird   talk  05:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support (COI) I did the GA review for this, and since then it has been formally peer-reviewed and informally commented and improved by many project members. I agree with SS on the level of detail in phylogeny, and to me this article is one of the best bird articles I have seen in coverage, depth of research and prose. I have no significant issues jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support (COI) (conditional on below) I have looked over this several times; I feel the prose is crisp and the content comprehensive. Una does have a point in taxonomy and a sentence or two clarifying may be of use:



this sentence is a little unclear as to how the groups are related - is formicariidae the sister group or much more distantly related? Worth pointing out as they were once classified in same family. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I have clarified that. It took me a while to see what Una was driving at by I think I've got it now. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Shyamal (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support (no COI)... seems to me to meet all the criteria. Giggy (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Comments "As small birds with rounded wings and strong legs, antbirds have mostly sombre grey, white, brown and rufous plumage." - does that mean all small birds with rounded wings and strong legs have sombre ... plumage ?
 * "Most have heavy bills, which in many species are hooked at the end." - which end? tip may be better.
 * "Some species communicate warnings to each other." - each other of the same species or across species.
 * "the loudsong and the softsong" - are these terms standard ? If so maybe good to italicize on first usage to indicate the novelty of the words.
 * Would be good if the citation templates are used. This makes wikipedia amenable to meta-analysis such as citation counts etc.
 * I've addressed the points you made - softsong and loudsong are neogolisms used by workers and found in the texts I worked with which is why I included them. I didn't change the citations; I loathe the citation templates. If someone else wants to change them I will not stop them but (last time I checked) they are not required and until they are I will choose not to use them unless an article already overwhelming uses them. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  03:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A family of birds I will probably never meet. I agree that the citation templates are still rather intrusive, but I can also see great advantages to it.(See http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/5582/pdf/imm5582.pdf) By having central control it can also have values beyond in the future like perhaps allowing the user to choose preferences in citation style such as APA, MLA and so on. Shyamal (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.