Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chiffchaff


 * 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

Chiffchaff



 * Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's been significantly expanded and improved since GA Jimfbleak (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose now Support but not far off. Could do with some inexpert copyediting. As an example, I found this sentence near the top of the article, where only the last word is wikilinked... "The spring adult of the western nominate subspecies collybita has brown-washed dull green upperparts, off-white underparts becoming yellowish on the flanks, and a short whitish supercilium" I'd suggest wikilinking or better explaining all of the words I've bolded. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅I've linked nominate, primary projection and several others now, Jimfbleak (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than that which you've fixed, I'm having trouble finding what I had trouble with, so either it's fixed, or I imagined it, so switched to support. --Dweller (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Range map? Also image Image:Spectrogramcollybita2.jpg could be improved, graphs are easy to generate now-a-days and I also don't see much value in the graph itself. 206.248.183.187 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get a range map, lack the skills myself. I thought the spectrogram illustrated the differences between the subspecies' calls - I'll leave for now, remove if generally felt to be unhelpful. I don't know how to do graphs from non-numerically generated analogue data, any pointers please? Jimfbleak (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure advanced sound analysis programs could generate them but those cost money, need to be learned etc. I guess it wasn't to smart of me to suggest that you go through all that trouble. I apologize. Nevertheless I still don't see the merits of including it despite it being a nice trivial knowledge. The problem is I fail to see too many people in need or interest of such information. That is my opinion, I would ask you to not remove it unless your fellow WP:BIRD wikipedians would want to see it removed. If it isn't hurting anyone why bother stressing over it? Thanks, 206.248.183.187 (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ range map added, hopefully it will be replaced by one more competently made. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Nearly there very very close but a couple of grammar thingies:


 * primary projection - need to link or explain. ✅ - actually already linked on first occurrence, explained too now


 * confusion species - agh. sounds...funny. I know what you mean but it is an unnatural construction to me ears. How about changing The most likely confusion species are the... to "Species most likely to be confused (with the chiffchaff) are the " ✅ - rephrased


 * but has a very plain face and green in the wings - could lose the 'very' I think ✅

Other than that I think it's pretty well there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Nearly, nearly there Comments – Another good bird article from Jimfbleak. However, I have a couple of points I’d like to see addressed:
 * Could you split up the first sentence in the lead; it seems a bit run-onish.
 * I sense some POV at the end of the first paragraph of the lead (never thought I’d say that about bird biology :)); “while the male does little more” just sounds weird and judgmental to me.
 * Not necessary if you like it as is, but I’d rearrange the first three sections so that they are 1. Taxonomy 2. Description and 3. Distribution; this would follow other bird FAs and also introduce reader to the different subspecies before they are mentioned in the other two paragraphs.
 * Could you put the abbreviations for genus and species before each subspecies name?
 * In Distribution, is there a word missing from “is not dependent on for trees.”?
 * Do any of the subspecies/former subspecies have unique articles which are not linked to in the article?
 * Breeding second paragraph, why do northern Chiffchaffs only have time to raise one brood (weather?)?
 * You mention a cultural reference in the lead that does not make the article proper.

Other than this, I think that the article looks pretty good. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC) ✅ all above fixed
 * Thanks for making my changes. However, just a few more comments before support. First, though not necessary, I'd move the picture of the Chiffchaff in the Taxonomy down to the Behavior section, as there are no pictures there and its current placement causes a lot of white space on my screen. Also, keeping in mind that this is a songbird and therefore generally isn't the most historically popular bird in the world, are there any cultural references out there? I noticed you deleted the stamp reference, but if it is mentioned in a poem or something that info could work its way back into the article (maybe in the Status section if it is renamed Relationship with Humans.) Also, I noticed that MPF suggested deleting all imperial units and I would just like to comment that I would be vehemently opposed to doing so, seeing how Joe American reading this article (myself included) cannot picture the metric units mean when reading them. And, as you pointed out, they are in all other bird FAs. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Image moved. I can't find any cultural refs for Chiffchaff - it's a small woodland bird, not a familiar garden/farm bird like the Wren, Blackbird or Barn Swallow, and there's nothing in Cocker (the best source for birds that occur in the UK), nothing I could find on the net. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Great job with this article. I supported above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Map - I'll do an improved version sometime soon.
 * Thanks
 * Working on it, should be done later today unless anything else intervenes - MPF (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Finished breeding range, just got to fill in winter range now. Found this interesting short paper while looking for up-to-date info on Sweden (to see if the range gap between collybita and abietinus has filled in yet): pdf file, might be worth citing in the article - MPF (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Map done and added - MPF (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a better pic of the nominate race that can be put in the taxobox?
 * Unfortunately not (Not on commons or anywhere esle I can find
 * Subspecies could do with a bit more detail on identification/differentiation.
 * I've done a bit more wrt P. c. abietinus, I'll go through again - I don't want to get too bogged down in fine detail (I've got masses of data on description, esp for the ex-subspecies). ✅, expanded all of them esp voice
 * Minor trivia about depiction on stamp could be deleted or at least moved to bottom of page; it is one of the least important factoids on the page and doesn't deserve pride of place as the first referenced item at the top of the page.
 * ✅ Deleted
 * I don't think Goshawk (2nd paragraph) is a significant predator, if it is, it needs a ref; this sentence also duplicates the Predation section lower down the page.
 * ✅ I've changed changed it to the more general "hawk", since it is likely (but I can't source it) that small accipiters other than Sparrowhawk will take the species.
 * Excessive repetition of article title: it isn't necessary to repeat the name of the species ("the Chiffchaff is ...") every second sentence throughout the page. Use indefinite article ("it is ...") more.
 * ✅ I've chopped to about one per para
 * Cut imperial conversions, they're not necessary for a science topic and only clutter up the page and make it hard to read the measurements.
 * I'm a bit wary about this, since I've had other bird GA/FA reviewers insisting they are in. Can you point me to the relevant MoS guidance to take them out? Also see R-c Sparrow's comment above
 * WP:Mosnum#Conversions - "Conversions to and from metric and US units are generally provided. There are exceptions, including: articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked". Metric units are the international global standard, and as such it is reasonable to assume that everyone is familiar with them, including people in the USA where the it is taught in all schools and extensively (almost universally) used in US science publications. Anyone who isn't familiar with them must clearly have made a conscious effort to reject them. Sorry, but I really don't think the comment above is enough! I don't see the relevance of imperial units to this article at all; nor do I see why the vast majority should be inconvenienced to satisfy the pov of a small minority who reject global standards which are very easily learnt. We don't carry creationist pov in science topics; I don't see why we should carry imperialist pov, either. - MPF (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst, as a Brit, I sympathise with this view, I'm not sure that there is a consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units even within the Bird Porject as required by the MoS guidance above Jimfbleak (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I'd hope to achieve by raising the matter; I find the bracketed conversions very significantly affect readability. Is there a way they could be added less obtrusively, such as footnotes at the bottom of the page? - MPF (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, they don't bother me at all. This is the first time I can recall the argument to remove them on bio pages. Maybe nice to get some other input here. I'm happy to go with consensus, whatever that is.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Wikiproject birds is a more appropriate forum for this debate than FAC; I'm just following the guidelines as I perceive they currently stand, and I don't see consensus at the project at present. If you intend to oppose the FA on this issue, that's unfortunate, but there is little I can do about it. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jimfbleak that another page would be more appropriate to debate this than a FAC, but let me just say first that in American schools we are taught metric units and the basics of conversion, but we never really use them outside of school. Our scales are in pounds, our height is measured in feet, and we judge miles per hour and per gallon, not kilometers. Wikipedia's goal is to communicate encyclopedic information clearly to as many people as possible, and I think that myself and the majority of the 301 million Americans would relate to imperial units much better than metric, which some, particularly older ones who were not taught it in school, may not even recognize. As for the vast majority being inconvenienced by the inclusion of imperial, I believe that, going by the top 5 English speaking nations, there are 301 million Americans to a combined 115 million Brits, Aussies, New Zealanders, and Canadians. And to mimic Casliber, I just don't see how the conversions affect readability. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "301 million Americans" - none of them within the range of the species under discussion. That is an awful imposition to demand of a topic of no relevance to them. And you're forgetting 1,000 million Indians, 300 million Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, 300 million Africans, and something like 500-1,000 million other eastern Asian people who use English as a second language, all of them exclusively metric users, and most of them within the range of the species at hand. - MPF (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting that because this bird is not normally found in America, Americans do not need to be able to understand the article? And how are a few parentheses an "awful imposition"? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all! You're doing down the intelligence and comprehension of your countrymen there. As already mentioned, U.S. scientific publications all use metric measures exclusively; you won't find imperial measures in e.g. The Auk. And also as mentioned, it is reasonable to expect everyone to be familiar with global standards; if anyone isn't, then learn them, they're an essential part of common knowledge (and were specifically designed to be very easy to learn and use, so no excuses there!). What you are saying is more comparable to e.g. if I insisted that all U.S.-related topics on wikipedia must carry British English spellings in parenthesis after the U.S. spellings, just because a few British people may not understand (or, more accurately, may not wish to understand) U.S. spellings. And we don't do that.
 * As to the location of this discussion, yes, it would be better on the project page. Shall I copy or move it all across there? Or anyone else, feel free to do so. - MPF (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved discussion for continuation to here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one should use conversion templates and hope that the future wikimedia software will interpret templates to show per user taste / setting. Shyamal (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Spellcheck: needs checking over to BrE (per wp:engvar), e.g. "vocalisations" and "vocalizations" appear in successive paragraphs.
 * Etymology is under the Taxonomy header, not the right place - should have its own header, perhaps lower down the page. - MPF (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - etymology clearly belongs as a subheading of taxonomy (i.e. how things are named), though it is ok as a separate subheading. Also note FA criterion 2(b) concerning Hierarchy of headings, where groups of related material are grouped together. Anyway, that's how all other biological FAs have ended up cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me - MPF (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - etymology clearly belongs as a subheading of taxonomy (i.e. how things are named), though it is ok as a separate subheading. Also note FA criterion 2(b) concerning Hierarchy of headings, where groups of related material are grouped together. Anyway, that's how all other biological FAs have ended up cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me - MPF (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support looks good to me. I'm going to make one or two trivial edits but apart from that.... Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.