Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grey Currawong/archive1


 * 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 Karanacs 17:01, 18 May 2010.

Grey Currawong

 * Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is the standard of other bird articles I've worked on...and got a real grilling at GAN. It is much less known than the Pied Currawong (a featured article), so there was less to write. I also brought this up from redirect, to 5x expansion, to GA and now the last hurdle to finish what I started..... Have at it anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Many sources have been added to the article, while the other suggested sources are very difficult to get. Has had a MOS tuneup, and seems to meet all FAC criteria. Lengthy laundry list of resolved nitpicks moved to talk page. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. Overall, the quality of this article is good. However, it's quite short; is it truly comprehensive? Other comments:
 * Firs, it is alot less known/studied than the Pied Currawong or Australian Magpie. The sources above are some of the only ones I haven't been able to get and/or process, and they are pretty minor (but would be good to get). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that some species will be less well-studied than others, of course. Yet Sasata has compiled a hefty list of references not used in this article, so I was concerned. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and am doing my best to hunt them down, but they are pretty esoteric and not widely available - all are primary sources and some are brief one page affairs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The white markings on wings and under tail clearly visible."
 * There's no verb in this sentence.
 * missing verb added Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Their blackish bill is yellow-tipped, and gape is yellow."
 * Unless this is a birding thing, would 'the' help here?
 * yes. added Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Elsewhere, their call has been likened to the screech of ungreased metal grinding in Victoria and South Australia..."
 * This makes it sound as if the screech of metal specifically has to be made in Victoria or SA. Same with the subsequent "harsh squeak in Western Australia."
 * It is. There are separate subspecies and the call apparently varies according to region. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant, Cas: I meant the meaning can be misunderstood, based on the current word order. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Use of the serial comma varies throughout this article. Compare:
 * "including frogs, lizards such as the Bearded Dragon as well as skinks, rats, mice, and nestlings or young of Tasmanian Native-hen, Red Wattlebird, Eastern Spinebill, House Sparrow (Passer domesticus),[30] and Splendid Fairywren" (a comma preceeds the 'and')
 * with:
 * "It can be distinguished by its paler plumage, lack of white base to the tail, straighter bill and very different vocalisations." (no comma before the 'and')
 * It should be one way or the other throughout the article, for consistency.
 * true. I am not a fan on them, but have generally gone with the former as told its correct.Hence added. Could only find one other to this one, but hard to find Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Outlying populations are found on the east coast of Tasmania"
 * Yet the range map shows them covering all of Tasmania. Seems inconsistent.
 * I reworded this. I meant "outlying" as in noncontiguous, but I see how it dodn't come across. Reworded as Tasmanian subspecies doesn't connect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The species has been observed bathing by shaking its wings with water at ponds"
 * With? Or in?
 * "'with --> in. yeah, better.'' Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Data on nesting success rates is lacking; one study of 35 nests found 28 (80%) resulted in the fledgling of at least one young currawong."
 * It was only one study. Many species have many studies in different areas of the range etc. Hence the data is limited - actually limited is a more accurate word than lacking Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is 'fledgling' the right word here? I think 'fledging' was possibly meant here, but can't tell. A fledgling is a young bird, making "fledgling of at least one young currawong" redundant.
 * my bad "fledging" it is Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * More later... Firsfron of Ronchester  17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, Cas. I'll give it another pass soon. Good luck. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Images all appropriately licensed, References are RS.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Comments  A couple of niggles.
 * Six subspecies are recognised. It is a large crow-like bird, around 48 cm (19 in) long on average, with dark plumage with white undertail and wing patches, yellow irises, and a heavy bill. The male and female are similar in appearance. The overall plumage ranges... &mdash; “It“ obviously refers to the bird, but the last mentioned subject was “subspecies“. I’d move the ssp bit to after “appearance” because it would make more sense there anyway. Description reads ambiguously; irises and bill are not plumage.  The overall plumage colour... perhaps?


 * rejigged - better? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been noted to foretell rainy weather. Noted (ie a fact) or claimed?
 * Major headache - original claim I guess is part bush folklore, part observation (which may be indeed plausible). I tried the word "reported" so as to not indicate one way or the other true or falseness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * they chase more mobile animals.[26] It has been recorded
 * good catch - singularised Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I look forward to supporting soon Now supporting, coi as bird project member, but I've not edited this  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  05:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - not concerned about the length, which seems fine to me. Only query is a phrase in the lead which sounds wrong, but i didn't want to fiddle with for fear of introducing inaccuracy. "...much of its behaviour and habits is poorly known" should i think read "its behaviour and habits are poorly known". The "is" sounds wrong, but "are" would not seem to agree with "much of", hence my proposed solution, but i'll leave it to one of hte article's regular editors. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, I had meant the "is" to refer to the collective-and-hence-singular "much of" ..i.e. bits and pieces of its behaviour are better known (i.e. song) but there are large gaps...I am happy with the wording but have a play if you feel there is a better way :) (thx btw)Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.