Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killdeer/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2018.

Killdeer

 * Nominator(s): RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the killdeer, a species of shorebird (although it frequently appears very far away from the shore, and doesn't even need to be near water to breed). I got interested in them after I saw a family during class. I think that this article is up to the featured article criteria, and I tried looking it over before I nominated it, so hopefully that will make this process faster. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1
Lead, 1a:
 * "is a relatively large plover found in the Americas."—Right at the opening (without context) is "relatively" adding anything?
 * Yeah; it is pretty small compared to a lot of other birds, like the American crow. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Again: why isn't that meaning captured by ""is a large plover found in the Americas."? Tony (talk)  04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh... I'll change it. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "It was described and given its current scientific name by Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae."— (year)?
 * Done in lead and article. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "often heard call"—hyphen necessary.
 * I'd personally disagree (isn't it just in "oft-heard"?), but I've changed it regardless"?
 * No, you need the hyphen. Tony (talk)  04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added it. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. You could alternatively remove "often heard" altogether. Tony (talk)  10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm an idiot. Sorry about that. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Also disease: "Its upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes. It also has patches of white and black on its head, in addition to two black breast bands. The belly and the rest of the breast is white." If the also was ... also ... brown with furuous finges, fine. But it's not. "Its upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes. It has patches of white and black on its head, and two black breast bands. ..." Sift through the whole text (printed out, preferably) to find opportunities for simplifying the grammar and removing words. Why is the last bit worth elevating over the other points, to be a stand-alone sentence?
 * I'd prefer to keep the "also", because it is a transition word, so it makes it look more connected together, instead of a string of statements. I will simplify the prose a bit, though. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Also" performs no useful service there. The "linking word" you speak of is "It". Tony (talk)  04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would disagree; "it" is also used in the previous sentence. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean "I would disagree". I'm encouraging you to weed the fluff out of your writing. And here, the listing technique introduces distortions aside from the two redundant additive connectors. "Its upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes. It also has patches of white and black on its head, in addition to two black breast bands." -> "The upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes, the head has patches of white and black, and there are two black breast bands on the breast." Tony (talk)  10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Resident resident resident. "It is resident in the southern half of its breeding range, in addition the subspecies C. v. ternominatus likely being resident in the West Indies and C. v. peruvianus being resident to Peru and areas of the surrounding countries. This species winters from its resident range south to Central America, the West Indies, and the northernmost portions of South America." Hate the noun-plus-ing grammar. "; the CVtern is likely to reside in the West Indies and perublah in Peru and ...". in then to? Do you need "areas of"? "This species" is now confusing, after mentioning the two subs. Name it again.
 * That wasn't my best writing, to be honest. Rejigged. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you've introduced "fOUND year-rOUND". And there's another "year-round" a few seconds later. Tony (talk)  10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "(but locations such as rooftops may also be used)"—may also sounds like it's from a rule book. "are also"?
 * What do you mean by "rule book"? Rooftops are not usually used, hence the "may". RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "May" is ambiguous"—is allowed to? In the context, the reader will work out that you don't mean that; but why invite momentary fuzz in the first place?
 * I disagree with you (I won't go into it, because it's tangental to the subject at hand), but I've changed it to "are sometimes also used". RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Never a comma after "and". But it needs a semicolon instead, without the and. Think about how close or distant the last proposition is from what come before it. That's an issue in your writing ... how to put clauses together.
 * Could you maybe reconsider this? Without the "and", it feels like a rough transition. It just feel "ew". RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "ew" to follow one proposition after another, as long as the relationship between them is clear and comfortable. "And" implies too close a connection; that is why a semicolon is more suitable. Tony (talk)  04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh; it seems to me to show less of a connection. For example, in the second sentence of your comment, you used a semicolon to follow a proposition with a proposition that logically followed it; that makes sense. But saying that it nests in fields and sometimes not close to water does not logically follow; fields can be close to water. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, a semicolon provides a sharper break than "and". The comma is still there. Why is "rooftops'' linked? Tony</b> (talk)  10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "The nest itself is a scrape lined with vegetation and white material, such as pebbles or seashell fragments." Does "itself" add anything? (It's a back-reference ... but). Commas: "The nest is a scrape, lined with vegetation and white material such as pebbles or seashell fragments." It lays: what, the next lays?
 * Clarified. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * mid-March, etc.
 * Done. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And your edit removes the more accurate monthy ranges, replacing it with "later dates". Dates are specific days. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed to "later timing". RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "where the chicks"—needs a comma, doesn't it?
 * Yeah, before. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd cut the "may be" rule-book stuff: "and may be watched over by their parents" -> "and are typically/usually watched over by their parents"
 * No, they are not; HBW says "fledged young sometimes stay with parents for up to ten days". RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then use "occasionally" or "can" or "have been observed", or some such.<b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've actually removed this altogether, as it's not the most important. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Incubation is performed by both sexes, and lasts for 22 to 28 days on average." Why not simplify, binning the passive? "Both parents incubate their young, for 22 to 28 days on average." <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Simplified (although I changed "their" to "the" and removed the comma). RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 14:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "after this event"—could refer to several events you've mentioned.
 * Clarified. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That's two paragraphs of a rather detailed lead. Am I getting the helicopter view I need? How much of the detail is repeated in the body of the article?
 * In response to the last question, all of it. The lead is supposed to be based off of the article. I will admit that I went a bit deep in some areas, but I personally view the lead not just as a way to introduce a subject, but get the reader interested in the subject. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead is too long and too cluttered with detail. Readers do not want to encounter so much raw repetition further down. The lead is a summary of a summary style. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've pared it down a bit, while still keeping the interesting and important parts. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "It was described and given its current scientific name in 1758 by Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae." in the lead. A minute later: "The killdeer was first described as Charadrius vociferus in 1758 by Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae." in the next section.<b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rejigged latter sentence. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 14:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

My view is: Withdraw, rework, and resubmit. The key review processes are embedded in my comments above. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  02:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Will you review the whole article, then? RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 04:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because there are a lot of nominations to deal with, and we don't offer a full copy-editing service. It's a judgmental process, perhaps with pointers so that you (and preferably your collaborators too) can go through the rest. The prose is not at FA standard. I'm trying to help you improve your writing so you can do it yourselves. Then WP gets an advantage. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added rebuttals to your rebuttals of a few of my points, inserted issues with some of your edits in response, and added comments on a few more issues in the lead. I'm not used to having to argue about redundant wording. I get it—your strategy is to discredit the reviewer in the hope that the system will disregard the suggestion to withdraw and resubmit. It's not a stratey I'm buying. I'm putting the time and effort into this to demonstrate global improvements you can make to your writing/editing. That is of wider benefit to WP. But the idea of putting this on the list for a few months until scarce reviewers and coordinators are worn down or bored with it so let it through ... please no. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume that I'm arguing with you so as to discredit you. I'm not trying to do that. I do like getting suggestions, and I thank you for that, but to me, you are being a bit abrasive. When I disagree with you, I'm trying to get you to explain it to me, because in some cases, I don't understand it. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't want to spend this much time on a single nomination. So what I want is for you to go through it. Here's the final para of the lead, full of vagueness, ambiguity, unidiomatic wording, etc, to show you how much there is to do. Does it get better after the lead? I want you to be able to edit this stuff. We need you. But it's not good enough yet for FAC.

The killdeer primarily feeds on insects, although other invertebrates and seeds are also taken [weird]. It forages almost exclusively in fields, especially those with short vegetation and those with cattle and standing water [listing technique, again]. In addition to foraging during the day, it forages during the night when the moon is full or close to full in the lunar cycle in the non-breeding season. This is beneficial [to farmers?] because insects are more abundant and there is reduced predation [at night? full moon?]. The predators of the killdeer include various birds and mammals. There are multiple responses to predation, ranging from calling at a stand to the "ungulate display", which, in some cases, is fatal for the performing individual. This bird is least concern according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), because of its large range and population. Although this is true [true that what—it's been classified?], its population is declining, but this trend is not severe enough for the killdeer to be considered a vulnerable species. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  15:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the article thoroughly yet, but given the comments above, I would generally recommend sending articles to GAN before FAC, as most of us do, since this will iron out most such issues so they won't become obstacles during FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. I generally don't like GAN, but I think that it probably will be for the better to go through there before I nominate an article again. Thanks! :) RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 13:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Riley, I'm not quite sure how to read this -- are you withdrawing this nom to take to GAN, or are you just saying that in future you'd go to GAN before FAC? Thing is, I'm really obliged to close this one way or the other, the FAC instructions are clear on coord actions if an early recommendation for withdrawal comes up, and no-one is exactly protesting the recommendation, so I'm kind of asking if you want to jump or be pushed... It comes to the same thing in the end, the nom being archived and a two-week wait for the next one, the difference is that if you request the withdrawal yourself it will say "withdrawn" here when I close it, rather than simply "archived". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, that sorta sucks. Well, I'll withdraw and take it to GAN (although I've gotta sleep, so I can't do it today). Thank you for informing me of my options. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, tks for that. FWIW, I like GAN myself as first step towards FAC, although if you can organise a peer review -- formal or informal -- that might be better still. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.