Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuthatch


 * 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 19:19, 25 July 2008.

Nuthatch

 * Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's passed GA, and why do one species when you can do 24? I'm a significant contributor (262/383 currently), but other members of the bird project have been very helpful, especially with the images. Reviewers please note that I'll be away for two days during the week, so responses may not always be instantaneous (something to look forward to when I get back) jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Generally, the article looks pretty good. Gary King ( talk ) 07:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove the period from "A Eurasian Nuthatch climbing a tree trunk in search of food." – it's a sentence fragment
 * The table is huge – perhaps move it to List of Nuthatch species?
 * I've removed the full stop. I'd rather leave the table as is for now, if there is more support for hiving it off, obviously I'll reconsider; prior to FAC it hasn't been suggested. jimfbleak (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to review the article for GAN but when I saw the list, I was scared away :) Gary King ( talk ) 07:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the table presents the information well, and, if it was not there, the article would probably need a list of species. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reduced the image thumbnails to 100px, less overwhelming now, could maybe go to 80 if necessary jimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Comments - just starting to look through now. At 37kb, the article is at the lower end of FA size anyway. Prose looks good first up but there are a few comprehensiveness issues:
 * The taxonomy section doesn't really talk about the family sittidae until it pops up mentioned by name after the mention of sittellas. I think it needs a couple of sentences at the bottom of first para or beginning of second para, on definition of sittidae (Linnaeus the authority of the family too?).


 * Also, the cladebox mentions the wrens/gnatcatcher clade etc but this is not mentioned in the text. It would be good to have, along with why they are placed there (morphology or DNA) (still not mentioned what it is based on) and how strong is the evidence - are there any alternatives?
 * This is the consensus tree and for this part there is apparently fairly strong evidence from DNA. Added the reference and noticed that the usual academic standard pp. for multiple pages and p. for single page is not followed. Shyamal (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Any fossil record? There should be something on evolutionary origins and where they are thought to have occurred. Great work. If there is doubt about what the fossil is, then explain the knowledge including uncertainties and possibilities. This is one of those great situations where a bit of openminded writing and less dogma is fantastic. Let the reader be the detective and draw their own conclusions...sorry I am going off on a tangent but you get the idea.


 * and perhaps should be promoted to a full species. - not thrilled about the wording - sounds like the WP article is pushing for this. Can be worded differently - 'strong evidence for specific status'? or something similar.
 * first-year birds - sounds odd to me - 'year-old birds' or 'birds in their first year'?
 * It has occurred as a vagrant - 'It has been recorded as a vagrant'?
 * Breeding and survival has lots of eggs, by switching I think you could get rid of one lot.

Anyway, these may be doable or not on sourcing. Let us know. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done as far as possible. the minor points all fixed. I can't find anything on the evolutionary origins of the Sittidae (Lesson, not Linnaeus), although it's "obvious" they arose in SE Asia. I've rejigged the cladebox text into the main, but I have nothing more than what's there. Should I remove the text and cladebox? I already had the fossil ref (there's nothing else I can find) but didn't put it in originally since it may not be a nuthhatch (or a treecreeper) - new genus, not Sitta or Certhia jimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On the fossil issue, that's all there is, I only have access to the abstract, and everything that says is in the text. On the superfamily bit, I've added the DNA basis and set it in context, but there is virtually nothing else out there regarding the robustness of including the wrens and gnatcatchers with the nuthatches and treecreepers. jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It generally looks good. I have added some cite info about food caches (something my supervisor is into in a big way). I do have a major problem with the first line and the taxonomy section however, it is inconsistent and confusing with regards to whether the article is about a family or genus. The taxobox states that it is about the family Sittidae and genus Sitta, but the first line only alludes to the genus. The Taxonomy section mentions that the family sometimes includes the Wallcreeper, but that species is treated as its own family on its page. If the article is about the whole family then Sittidae should be bolded and in the first line. If the whole family is taken to include the Wallcreeper and this is the family page then that atypical "nuthatch" must get further mentions in the text. If it isn't included in this page but in the Sittidae family then a new page is needed for the family. Perhaps a better solution is to simply treat it as a separate family for now and treat this page as the family page for the Sittidae. But the current arrangement isn't really good. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All these edits and I never checked the taxobox!. I've fixed this now as the genus, made Wallcreeper consistent, and substubbed Sittidae so it's not a redirect jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support (Full disclosure, I am WP:BIRD member and have made a few contributions to this article while reviewing). I would mention which family the genus is from in the intro. And curses for expanding an article to featured status, then demoting it down to genus and creating another family stub. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

*Note to reviewers I think I've now addressed outstanding concerns from Gary, Caliber and Sabine's Sunbird. I'll be in London until Tuesday now, so responses to further comments unlikely before Tuesday pm at earliest. jimfbleak (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks and apologies. I'll try to work up the Sittidae article when this is done, and I'll add the family to intro jimfbleak (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The image Image:Red-breasted-nuthatchmirror.jpg is a derivative of Image:Red-breasted-Nuthatch.jpg. I think the mirror image should be attributed partly to the original author and partly to the author who modified it for this article. Other images on this page need checking too. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have wrote in the attribution details to the mirror image, but I note that the copyright that was given to it is different from the original source image. I think that only the uploader (who is away until Tuesday) can change this, if it needs correcting. If the image is not needed, I guess that it can be deleted. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem fixed by using a new cropped image: I am not sure why a mirror image was used, and so I have re-cropped the source image (leaving it facing to the right) and repositioned the new image on the left of the page. This semiautomated tool on commons did most of the work. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, you seem to have sorted it all while I've been in London. I'm not sure what the convention is on attributing modified images. Obviously the modification is my own work, and I have to name the original image to justify GFDL, but I don't know what else is expected. Since you've sorted the issue here, perhaps we could discuss elsewhere (the bird project page? jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know the exact details, but the license on the original work has implications for the licenses of modified works ad infinitum. Anyway, I think that the semi-automated tool did not have an option to use the license that you used for your modified work (no longer on the page). I think that explains it, but you can start a discussion on a specialised page, if you want to. Snowman (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for completeness, I've now discovered the derivative image page on commons, so problem shouldn't arise again. jimfbleak (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The table has the header "Species in taxonomic order", but this is not explained, and there is no footnote. I think this jargon should be explained. Snowman (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A footnote has been added, but it seems to be incomprehensible. The foot note says "...means that the list is in the order of the relationships between the species", which does not explain what the order is. Is it the order in which they were discovered? or something to do with the DNA of the species (and if so what)? The page about taxonomy that it is now linked to also does not explain what taxonomic order is. Snowman (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Footnote added and reworded - if you're not happy with this version, please reword as appropriate. jimfbleak (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The rewording seems better, but as I was seeking an explanation and as I do not know much about this, I can not make substantial edits to the footnote. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is much more that can be said - the reasons for the order vary from case to case, all we can say is that this is what it's thought to be jimfbleak (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"The nuthatches are a genus, Sitta, of generally very similar small passerine birds found in much of the Northern Hemisphere. Together with the Wallcreeper, they constitute the family Sittidae. They have a distinctive shape with large heads, short tails and powerful bills and feet, and all the species are recognisable as belonging to this group. These are vocal birds with loud, simple songs."
 * Ah, Jim, I recognise the prose patterns. Let's take the opening:

Oppose—Maybe the first clause is OK, but it's a pity it has a choppy, hiccoughy rhythm. The move from the taxonomic them to where they're found, back to the taxonomic, doesn't help. Move the "found in" phrase down to where you talk about their shape etc. Comma after "shape". Why is "all the species are recognisable as belonging to this group" (which, genus? family? I'm confused) jammed into a sentence about their appearance. It's a complete mess. Sorry.
 * "Most nuthatches breed in temperate or montane woodland, but two species have adapted to rocky habitats." OK, temperate or montane, compared with just rocky: is rocky temperate or montane? Or tropical? Your normal punters like me could be forgiven for thinking that "rocky" occurs in all climates.
 * "All nest in holes or crevices, and several members of this genus reduce the size of the entrance to the breeding cavity by constructing a mud wall." First you refer to them as "All"; then they get the full shebang, "of this genus". Very awkward.
 * Careful with you use of "but", which usually implies contradiction. The two "buts" in the lead are only just OK.
 * "head first", I think, should be hyphenated, especially in BrEng.

This can't possibly be promoted. The prose is wickedly awkward, so that readers have to work harder than they should, but still don't get the straight, etched line they deserve. A fresh copy-editor is required, and it's not a quick job. All of the text needs surgery. You have a lot to offer WP in this field, but I can't see these unfortunate features of your writing style improving. I don't mean to attack you personally—far from it: I nurse a hope that you might become a fine writer. Tony  (talk)  09:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewritten intro per comments above jimfbleak (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Presentation of the table; I think the table can usefully summaries more details of the genus. I have reorganised the table to make better use of space. There is now room in the table for a description in which identification details of the species and the length of the birds could be included in an easy to scan format. Scanning is easier when the image is to the left of a block of text. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy about this. The information for each species should be in the species' article. I don't want an edit war in the middle of FAC so the alternatives are
 * You complete the species' details (I can just about live with that.)
 * revert to previous format
 * withdraw article from FAC - even I wouldn't support it with an almost empty column
 * jimfbleak (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion on the talk page indicates that the table needed an improved format, and you have written "if you want to change the format, please go ahead" here, and that is what I have done which seemed to be with your blessing, at least in part on 8 July 2008, 11 days after this FAC started. It is a wiki article, so several editors can help to complete the table. There is some criticism of this article in this FAC, and some editors have criticised the table on the talk page rather than discussing the table here. There is a lot of information on this page that is also in the species pages, so that is not a problem in itself, the table being is an easy-to-view summary of the genus. Some of the images are diagrammes, some photographs, some drawings, and there is one video link, and the inconsistency has been mentioned on the talk page. The new description column will bring more consistency to the table. This article needs every help it can get at aiming at FA level.  Edit warring is irrelevant to my table reformat, which is to improve the table on the nuthatch genus, and is as discussed on the talk page under two discussion headings, at least in parts.  I hope that the main editors of this page can continue to improve this page, with the help of opinions and contributions from editors new to the page and I welcome more opinions on the table. It may look like the article is heading for a fail and it may seem to be a good tactic to withdraw your FAC nomination, but many pages have improved during FAC and I would like to give it more time. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Description details added in new table column. Snowman (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reviewing only image licensing: Image:Rocknuthatchmirror.jpg needs source details, as does Image:RedbreastedNuthatch23.jpg (what page was that downloaded from?). --NE2 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll reupload shortly now I know the correct way to do this jimfbleak (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the first image I gave incomplete and incorrect details, now amended on the image page. Wikimedia fx wouldn't let me licence this as a derivative, but since they are from the same pd source, this can stand alone anyway now. The red-breasted is a US federal picture, but I can't now find the source, so I've deleted it from the article. 16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you; all fixed now. --NE2 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support On a fresh read-through after the recent rounds of editing, I am satisfied with the prose. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, credit to the reviewers jimfbleak (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, I must concur with my colleague that the prose is very hard to get through. I'm not talking about glaring errors—the prose just needs smoothing. Some random examples:
 * "Nuthatches are vocal birds with loud, simple songs, which they use to advertise their territories." Advertise seems an odd word, but perhaps it's my ignorance of birds.  Do they want other beasts to come in (which "advertise" suggests) or to stay out?
 * "They are omnivorous, eating mostly insects, nuts and seeds, and the habit of wedging a large food item in a crevice and then hacking at it with a strong bill gives this group its English name." Odd construction makes readers go far ahead of "... and the habit" to discover that it's not another list item and is actually outlining another concept.
 * "The nuthatches are all placed in the single genus Sitta ..." Why not just "the genus Sitta" since you already wrote "all"?
 * "... the word element hatch being related to hack through palatalization." Linguistics journal, yes.  General-audience encyclopedia, no please.
 * "The family Sittidae is usually considered to contain the "true" nuthatches in the subfamily Sittinae, and the Wallcreeper as the only representative of the subfamily Tichodromadinae." Again, very belabored and I'm left unclear about what you're really saying.
 * A definite candidate for withdrawal, copy-editing, and peer review. -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the specific points made ("advertising" is standard, but I've spelt it out anyway). Thanks for the invitation to withdraw, but I decline to do so. A family level article was never going to be easy, but Nuthatch can take its chances here. If it fails, so be it, I'll concentrate on Greater Crested Tern instead. Having been rebuffed twice by an fac copy editor in the past, I see little mileage in that route - or are you volunteering?. jimfbleak (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will copy-edit almost anything on request, but you'd have to wait for me to finish a couple other commitments. Also, I'd have to be monitored to make sure I don't change the meaning of various passages.  A good example is "advertised" above, but I thank you for teaching me something today. :) -- Laser brain   (talk)  06:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine, thanks for kind offer. jimfbleak (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support. A fine article.  A few comments:
 * I have a question about the intent of this sentence: **"The two species are not strongly tied to woodland; as their names imply, the two rock nuthatches breed on rocky slopes or cliffs, although both will move into wooded areas when not breeding." The prior sentence discussed to woodland species; why the sudden reference to rock nuthatches in a sentence that starts by discussing two woodland species?  Is the intent to note that though several species are tied to woodland, not all are?
 * That's what I was trying to say - this bit has given me more grief than anything else. It shouldn't be "the two species", anyway, I've corrected that.
 * That fixed it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "They nest in cavities, with most species using tree holes except for the two species of rock nuthatches, making a simple cup lined with softer materials to receive the eggs." I've copyedited this sentence but would change it further if I knew for certain that the rock nuthatches are the only nuthatches not to use tree holes. Is that the case?
 * That's correct
 * OK; I've edited it further. Let me know if the new phrasing is still accurate. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The cross-section of the nest is "based on various sources" according to the uploader of the image. Could you add a citation to at least one appropriate source?  I don't insist that the citation be in the article; adding it to the image talk page would be OK.  It looks as if the Harrap and Quinn reference to pp. 155-158 in the adjacent text probably covers it.
 * I'll do that as soon as I've posted this
 * Done, used H&Q
 * OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at Albatross as a comparison article, since it's featured and covers more than a single species. There are some sections in that article that don't appear here.  Can you comment on whether it would be useful to have sections, or perhaps just a little more information, on evolution?  How about a map showing distribution (not down to the individual species, but just of the overall Sitta distribution?  Is there anything interesting to be said about their flight?  Is there any notable courting behaviour?
 * Small birds like nuthatches leave few traces in the fossil record, and I can find nothing concrete about their evolution although they "obviously" spread from south Asia. I have zero map-making skills, and I'm not sure what it would add - basically shading in most of NAM, Europe and Asia. Unlike albatrosses, where the flight is well-studied, small non-migratory birds excite little interest. I'll check again to see if there's any thing to add about courtship.
 * There's nothing for the family as a whole. Courtship is described in detail for a few well-studied species, notably Eurasian, but nothing that can be safely generalised. In previous FAs I've also looked at diseases and parasites, but these small woodland birds don't attract much investigation.
 * Fair enough. If you can source a statement about their "obvious" origin, phrased that way, that would be a reasonable addition, I'd think. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a copyedit pass and found a few things to fix, some of which were noted by others above. Overall I think the prose is FA quality now.  I'll be glad to support once the points above are addressed.
 * Thanks for your much needed help, if you can get the rock nuthatches to make sense, I'd be grateful. jimfbleak (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * remaining concerns now addressed. jimfbleak (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Switched to support. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to you and users Shyamal, Circeus and Snowmanradio who have also helped to salvage this article. jimfbleak (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

both negative and positive (in response to the above)
 * Resolved comments from delldot   talk  '''
 * I think the table is fine. I'm not overly bothered by the variation in pictures and drawings.  I think the link to taxonomic order in the title is enough explanation.
 * You may want to order the refs in numerical order, e.g. ...north of its extensive range.[40][39] (there are several)
 * Lead
 * They forage for insects hidden in or under bark  - I don't think bark needs to be wikilinked, it's a common term.
 * Taxonomy
 * The English name, "nuthatch", of the genus refers to the habit... - Could you safely remove of the genus''?
 * ...hacking at it with their strong bill: hatch being etymologically related to hack. - I would think you'd need to replace being with is, or else replace the colon with a comma.
 * Some taxonomists place the nuthatches and treecreepers in a larger group along with the wrens and gnatcatchers. - could you get rid of along?
 * The fossil record for this group appears to be restricted to a foot bone of an early Miocene bird from Bavaria which has been identified as an extinct representative of the Certhioidea clade.  - what does appears to be? Wouldn't we know for sure whether it was? Also, I would remove this wikilink around clade and link the first instance instead.
 * Species boundaries in the nuthatches may be difficult to define; the Red-breasted Nuthatch of North America, the Corsican Nuthatch and the Chinese Nuthatch have breeding ranges separated by thousands of kilometres, but are similar in habitat preference, appearance and song.  - the may be difficult is a little confusing here. Can we know for sure whether it's difficult?  Also, this is a long, complex sentence, you could maybe split it.
 * Together with the Krüper's and Algerian Nuthatch, which they also resemble in plumage and vocalisations, they form a superspecies, the members of which all excavate their own nests - this sounds awkward to me. How about which have similar plumage and vocalisations to the... and separating the members of which all excavate their own nests into a new sentence?
 * They have been regarded as anything from one to four species,[4] with the latter being the current view. - this sounds awkward to me, with the anything from, and the with transition, but I can't figure out how to fix it.
 * Description
 * Patterns on the head can include a long black eye-stripe, contrasting white supercilium, dark forehead or cap. - wouldn't there be an and? Is eye-stripe really hyphenated? Is there a better way to word than can include?
 * This is a very difficult sentence: The sizes of nuthatches vary from the Giant Nuthatch, 195 mm (7.75 in) long and weighing 36–47 g (1.3–1.6 oz)[35] to the Brown-headed Nuthatch or the Pygmy Nuthatch, both around 100 mm (4 in) long and weighing about 10 g (0.36 oz),[21] but all are immediately recognisable as members of the same family. How about two: The sizes of nuthatches vary, but all are immediately recognisable as members of the same family. The largest is the Giant Nuthatch, which is 195 mm (7.75 in) long and weighs 36–47 g (1.3–1.6 oz), and the smallest...
 * Their songs tend to be simple, and often identical to the calls but longer in duration - what's the difference between a song and a call?
 * Er, what's the difference between a breeding song and a contact call? I don't suppose there's an article to wikilink to?
 * Good idea, now linked


 * The Red-breasted Nuthatch coexists with the Black-capped Chickadee in much of its range - This sentence introduces the rest of the paragraph, but your reader has no idea why they're reading it until later. I would rearrange it to have the last sentence higher up.  Or you could include it as a parenthetical in a later sentence (which is quite long and could stand to be split).
 * Distribution and habitat
 * Representatives of the nuthatch family occur in suitable habitat in most of North America... - suitable? I don't think this adds any explanation, it's kind of circular.
 * ...although both will move into wooded areas when not breeding. - could you do away with will with no change in meaning? How about both?  Also when not breeding strikes me as a little awkward, but this may not need to be changed.  What about changing the clause to ...only moving into wooded areas when they are not breeding?
 * Those that breed further north, like Eurasian and Red-breasted, may be lowland birds in the north of their range, but associated with mountains further south. I read this sentence several times and still don't get it.
 * The Velvet-fronted Nuthatch is the sole member of the family for which the preferred habitat is tropical lowland forests. - would it change the meaning to say which prefers?
 * Breeding and survival
 * The altricial chicks take about 21–27 days to fledge - could you explain altricial in parentheses?
 * One hundred and seventy Pygmy Nuthatches have been recorded at a single roost, and this species is also able to lower its body temperature when roosting - This is confusing because it covers two different topics. I would split out the second half of this sentence and combine it with the next sentence.
 * I moved a sentence for flow here. If the ref at the end of it applies to the whole paragraph, you should move it to the end again, but I didn't want to for fear of making it look like the ref endorses more than it does.  delldot   talk  15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref moved


 * Feeding
 * ...often hanging on on foot and supporting themselves with the other. - often hanging on one foot?
 * It may carry the bark tool from tree to tree, or to cover a seed cache. - I would add the second half of this sentence to the previous one, or flesh it out and make it its own sentence.
 * These caches are remembered[56] for as long as 98 days.  - citation for the 98 day figure?
 * Status
 * Some nuthatches, like the Eurasian Nuthatch and the North American species, have large populations and wide geographical distributions, and present few conservation problems,[14] although local populations are affected by reduction and fragmentation of woodlands. - Long sentence. Also, is present the right word here?
 * Still looks long to me, but I'll defer to others if they think it's all right. delldot   talk  15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left as is for now, seems disjointed to me if split into two sentences


 * The endangered White-browed Nuthatch is known only from the Mount Victoria area of Burma, where forest up to 2,000 m (6,560 ft) has been almost totally cleared and habitat between 2,000–2,500 m (6,560–8200 ft) has been heavily degraded. - I don't understand the measurements. If we're talking area, wouldn't it be square meters?  Or is this above sea level or something?
 * Nearly 12,000 people live in the national park, and their fires and gum traps add to the pressure on the birds. - What's a gum trap?
 * The former species prefers open pine woodland, and is better able to cope with tree felling, but although still locally common, it has been lost from several of the areas in which it was recorded in the early 20th century - too long.
 * A law for the promotion of tourism came into force in Turkey in 2003, further exacerbating the threats to the habitat. - this is too vague to be helpful. What did the law do that threatened them?
 * Good, but you might remove the "foreign investors" thing; surely foreign investors aren't more of a threat than any other kind? Or do they somehow develop in a less sustainable way?  delldot   talk  15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, the only point really was that it was particularly difficult for foreigners to invest before the 2003 law.

Did you get that copyedit from Laser Brain? If not, I think it's still a good idea. Let me know when you've addressed these and (hopefully) when you've gotten the outside copyedit so I can have another look. delldot  talk  16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this before: I'm still not really comfortable with the paragraph based on a primary study in Breeding and survival (Beginning An American study showed that nuthatch responses...). This wouldn't be cool in the medicine Wikiproject, but I don't know anything about the bird project--is this common practice?  My problem with original studies is that the article seems to assert that this is always the case based on one study, it's not clear how relevant it is, and other issues with primary sources. But if other folks in the bird wikiproject say that use of primary sources is ok, I'm fine with it.
 * How about combing the article for long, complicated sentences?
 * Comment- as far as bird related sources go, the most useful thing about wikipedia articles at least from a research point of view are the links to primary sources, especially when there is a dearth of reviews or compilations (secondary/tertiary sources) to go by especially on ecological, behavioural and not to mention the ongoing work in phylogenetics.Shyamal (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, if others think it's fine, I'm fine with it too. delldot   talk  17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed a couple (can't find an earlier clade), try to get the rest done tomorrow. Just to add to the "sources" comment, even with a reasonably well-known group like this, if you take away the primary sources, there's very little apart from Harrap & Quinn for most of the many Asian species, and comprehensiveness becomes an issue.jimfbleak (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I can get the clade thing myself. I don't think the comprehensiveness would suffer in this case if you were to remove the info about the hawk/egg predator study, but I'm fine with the primary source staying.   delldot   talk  19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've addresses all your comments as best I can, please let me know if there are any other issues or if my changes have failed to fully answer your concerns. I'm between a rock and a hard place on sentence length, since Tony always opposes my FACs partly on the basis that the sentences are too short and choppy. I'm genuinely very grateful for the time and effort you have put into helping with this FAC, but unfortunately laser brain says that a copyedit in the timespan of FAC is now unlikely, so your efforts and mine may yet come to nought, since the two opposes will probably stand by default. Thanks again, jimfbleak (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, beautifully done jimfbleak. Sorry for the sentence length thing, it's incredibly frustrating to be given conflicting suggestions by reviewers. But I do think there's a balance to be struck, and I still think some sentences are too long. For example, The Western Rock Nuthatch builds an elaborate flask-shaped nest from mud, dung and hair or feathers in a rock crevice, cave, under a cliff overhang or on a building, and may decorate the exterior of the mud wall or nearby crevices and cracks with items such as feathers and insect wings. I should have been clearer before: it's not exactly a sentence's length that's the issue, rather how easy it is to follow. I think sometimes replacing commas with colons or semicolons can give the reader a little pause and can separate ideas more distinctly. I don't think the efforts are for naught; if the article's improving, that's a good thing, whether or not it passes this process. Having produced a piece of work of this quality is something you should be proud of whether or not it has a shiny sticker. Looks like Awadevit's going to give it a copy edit, I look forward to seeing it afterwards! delldot  talk  15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for the kind words, Awadewit seems to have fixed the rock nuthatch sentence. jimfbleak (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

}} Thanks for addressing these. Let me know when Awadewit's through copyediting: I'll read it again and hopefully be able to give my complete support! delldot  talk  15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support--reads clear as a bell now. Just a couple more issues I picked up on my last read-through:
 * There are some sentences in the table that end with periods, some that don't.
 * The descriptions I've added full stops since some have one mid-way anyway. The ranges, I've left without full stops except for the single example of a complete sentence. Is this mad?
 * Much better, but there's still a full stop after "Endemic to Burma" and "China, Burma, and Thailand" in the White-browed Nuthatch and Giant Nuthatch rows, I don't see how these are different from the other ranges in that column. Am I missing something?  A very minor point anyway.  And yes, where there's a full sentence keep the full stop.   delldot   talk  16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those two deleted now. jimfbleak (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Juveniles and first-year birds are difficult to distinguish from adults because they are almost identical--Can this sentence be made less redundant? Either remove the first half of the sentence or expand on how they're almost identical.
 * fixed by User:Shyamal
 * However, two species are not strongly tied to woodlands: the two rock nuthatches breed on rocky slopes or cliffs, although both move into wooded areas when not breeding --this sentence has two, two, and both, I think some of these are redundant.
 * fixed by User:Shyamal
 * Brilliant job, folks. I trust you'll take care of these couple minor things even though I'm supporting. delldot   talk  13:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to you for your constructive assistance with this difficult FA, and your support jimfbleak (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This may be a sign of my ignorance, but why does the article start "The nuthatches are" instead of "The nuthatch is"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is because it is a group name rather than dealing with something specific. Something like vehicle; hard to make that kind of article start in singular form. Shyamal (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? There's no grammatical reason why the noun shouldn't be in the singular. I was wondering if there were some other reason. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Might this be a BE difference? I know there are singular/plural differences between AE and BE. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * May be just style. One could have "A nuthatch is a member of the genus Sitta", and this approach seems to be followed in dictionaries. Here are some other comparable bird group articles:

So the choice seem to be between: and with the bird people preferring the second form which appears to be more informative. Shyamal (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eagle - Eagles are large birds of prey which are members of ...
 * Egret - An egret is any of several herons, ...
 * Heron - The herons are wading birds in the Ardeidae family.
 * Kite_(bird) - Kites are raptors with long wings ...
 * A group_member is a member of another_grouping_name ...
 * Group_members are individuals with group_characters ...


 * Comment - I have started to copyedit this article. I am a slow copyeditor, though, and I usually need several passes to really polish an article.
 * I also have a question about one of the images. It is getting cut off on my screen. Here is a screenshot. Awadewit (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My browser (FF3) like yours cuts off the sound button, I have no idea why.
 * The listen template doesn't scale; I forced the image size, which "fixed" the problem. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have finished my first copyediting pass. This was just to work on some paragraph and sentence-level organization. I am now going to work on words and punctuation. Please check over the changes I made to make sure that I did not introduce any errors.
 * I have finished my second copyediting pass. I have left a series of questions on the article talk page to help with clarification. I will do a third copyediting pass later today or tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have finished the last of my copyediting. It would be ideal to have another person run through the article, if one could be found. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Are there any videos of nuthatches hanging upside down? That would be awesome.) Awadewit (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be, but the only free video is the one linked from Blue Nuthatch. I'll check the changes when I do the next bit.
 * I think the lead needs to be a bit more of a summary of the article. For example, here are some major points of the article not mentioned in the lead: there are species boundaries issues; "The species diversity for Sittidae is greatest in southern Asia (possibly the original home of this family)"; the coloring of the nuthatch; the nesting practices of the nuthatch; etc. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll probably do this in the morning. Colouring probably too variable to summarise easily, but I'll look.
 * I've had a shot at this, except nesting. It already say they nest in holes, and there are few other practices they have in common jimfbleak (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have any idea regarding population sizes for each species? How many of these birds are there? (Is that a silly question?) Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Potentially silly answer) Actually such estimates can vary widely and estimates tend to exist only where the species are rare, large and distinctive or the distribution range is small. Most ornithologists love to study species only when they get rare enough for the funding agencies to dole out money for research and at that stage there are few enough birds to count. Shyamal (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are estimates for the European and NAm, I'll add these to table. They are little more than educated guesses by the scientists. It defies belief that Red-breasted has twice the population of Eurasian, given the latter's enormous and tree-filled range. jimfbleak (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the table, are we going with "lower parts" or "underparts"?
 * All changed to underparts
 * Is "eye stripe" one word or two? The article has both. I've checked several dictionaries and I think it is two words, but I wanted to make sure before I changed everything. Awadewit (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All changed to eye stripe (FF "find" function is invaluable for this!) jimfbleak (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a well-written, interesting article on nuthatches. I didn't know anything about nuthatches before I started copyediting it, but now I'm quite fascinated. I keep telling everyone I meet little factoids about nuthatches. :) The article has presented its information in an accessible and organized way. It is well-illustrated and the sources appear to be reliable. Thanks for the hard work put into this! Awadewit (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Even better than your usual work. Fantastic tabling and media use, in addition to good verification and sound prose. Steven Walling (talk) formerly Van Tucky 04:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steve, I like the new incarnation jimfbleak (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a Nuthatch on the bird feeders in my garden for the second time in 20 years today, does that count as a support???? jimfbleak (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments on images
 * Image:Krupersnuthatch.jpg - In the description, this just says "my own work". I assume it is by the uploader, Jimfbleak, but it would be good to make that explicit.
 * Yes, done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 15:09, July 24, 2008
 * Image:Rocknuthatchmirror.jpg - This image should indicate what encyclopedia it is taken from ("1905 encyclopedia" is not very revealing!) and I believe it should also indicate that it is cropped. Was this book published in Germany? (Need to know to check the license.)
 * I've added the page and book titles, Naumann was German, publication details can be found here jimfbleak (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is Naumann's entire name? I'm trying to verify that he has been dead long enough to allow this book to be in the public domain. Also, note that the source for the image indicates it was published in 1897, not 1905. Was this a multivolume encyclopedia or something? Sorry to be so picky, but we have to get the details right!
 * Johann Friedrich Naumann died 15 August 1857. He published The Natural History of German Birds between 1820-1844, so presumably multi-volume. I don't know why the dates on the website are after his death, presumably a later posthumous edition (I don't read German). This source hasn't had problems anywhere else, but if you're not happy, remove the image. Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We just need to find the right date for this particular edition. I'll see what I can do. Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added all of the details to the image description now. Awadewit (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Bluenuthhatch01.jpg - In the description, it would be better to say "Watercolor drawing by Jimfbleak", rather than "my watercolor drawing".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 12:59, July 24, 2008
 * Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 15:09, July 24, 2008


 * Oppose - formating concerns, i.e, a large table in the middle of the text before any of the important information is not encyclopedic and makes pleasure reading difficult. I have concerns over the pictures (some are way too large) and the shortness of topics such as description. Final picture is not alternated. Plus, references aren't harvnb citation style for those that can be, i.e. there isn't a template there, which would be necessary. Also, you rely heavily on only a few books, when there are tons of "bird guides" and other resources out there, which seems to suggest that the page is not as comprehensive as it should be. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that many of the images are thumbnails, which means you control the size in your Preferences. -- Laser brain   (talk)  19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is incorrect. They are set by default at 180px, unless they have a px tag. However, those images are not set at that, and wont be for most people. For instance, the one is set at "275px", which overrides any controls. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I know that. The two I checked randomly did not have sizes specified, hence my word many, not all.  Which images do you think are too large? -- Laser brain   (talk)  19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The red-breasted nuthatch with the media file is forced to 275px because otherwise the image and the media file are cut off on some screens. See the discussion above. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One image still seems to stick out, and the final image isn't alternated. Now, the rest of the problems mentioned haven't been addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The description section for the family as a whole has to be short, since the 24 species have few shared characteristics. The information on the individual species is in the table. There are "tons of bird guides" out there, but most are field guides which are mainly intended for identification and specific to a particular country's avifauna; they do not give much behavioural information. Harrap and Quinn is the standard text for this family, and for 15 Asian species I know of no other source giving details of breeding biology, diet etc. Even for the Eurasian Nuthatch, there is no other serious life-history text apart from Snow and Perrins (for the European part of its range only, and that's largely based on Harrap and Quinn). "tons of field guides" is unhelpful, please point me to ones I've missed that give the information, are not based on Harrap, and give life histories for the Asian species. Or are you saying that Harrap is not comprehensive enough? jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comprehensiveness - comment is unhelpful, seems unfounded. What information is both available and missing? There are no sources I can find (and I did a great deal of research) that add anything significant to what is already here - eg there is nothing for the family as a whole, on, say, parasites and diseases. Again please be more specific about what reliable texts or other detailed sources you think I have omitted to use. jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't understand the references comment -what's wrong? - the article has been intensively reviewed and copyedited. How does it deviate from Scientific citation guidelines? jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * images - I've move the last image as requested, put the red-breasted back to a thumb. Only forced pics now are the 100px in table jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Table - nowhere else it can logically go. There has to be some way of giving basic information about the 24 species, and anything other than a table will take up far more space. jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (copied from talk) I've moved species list as suggested, makes sense. On comprehensiveness, I think you miss the point. The article is about the genus as a whole, not individual nuthatch species, which have their own articles. I could easily write an article this length for Eurasian Nuthatch or any of the four American nuthatch species (it's the Asian ones which lack information - I note that of your links, only one was for an Asian species, one European, rest all American). The intention isn't to write every fact about every one of 24 nuthatch species - for what it's worth, I found 65 articles/books on just Eurasian Nuthatch in my research. Looking at the refs you gave, I've actually dealt with, for example, cooperative breeding in Brown-headed, and locomotion for the group as a whole, and I can't see why I need multiple refs for the same info (not required by MoS). In fairness, it's not enough to say there are lots of sources I haven't used - there are probably several hundred given the size of this genus. I repeat, if there are specific aspects of the genus Sitta that I haven't covered and for which the information exists you should specify what is missing, otherwise you give me no way of actioning your concern. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (copied from talk) If you feel that it is unactionable, then state so on the FAC, and Sandy will take that into consideration when she decides. However, there are a lot of books out there on the genus as a whole or provide information on the genus. I just feel that the topic could use some more detail. A lot of your references tend to be references linked to the same line, instead of providing more information. Feel free to say more and go into depth. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (copied from talk) Examples of books on Sitta genus would be helpful, I only know of Harrap and Quinn. jimfbleak (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "except for the two species"
 * "From mud, dung and hair or feathers, the Western Rock Nuthatch builds an elaborate flask-shaped nest whose exterior and nearby crevices it may decorate with feathers and insect wings." The word order (the opening phrase) is highly "marked": why? I've been struck down for using "whose" to refer to an inanimate object.
 * Why the sudden future tense, in conflict with the previous tense? "This species will also nest in river banks or tree holes and will enlarge its nest hole if it is too small." If the bird is too small?
 * Word order again: "Depending on the species, the eggs may be incubated by the female alone or by both parents, for 12 to 18 days." Put the last phrase without comma after "incubated". "are typically", not "may be".
 * "For those few species for which data are available". "the few".

When I opposed above, it wasn't a complete fix-it list, but examples of why the whole text needed treatment. Why am I seeing lots of glitches in just one small sample of text under "Behaviour"? Tony  (talk)  06:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I not sure that the for is necessary in British English, but I've changed it anyway. I agree about "From mud...", not sure where that came from. Fixed others as per comments. The article has had a detailed review from Delldot, and a copyedit from Awadewit, as per your original request jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Laser brain could give it a once over? Awadewit (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would like to point out that with the recent image de-sizing, the red-breasted nuthatch image and media button were cut off on my screen. I explained this above, but someone de-sized it anyway. I have forced the size so that the entire image, the button, and the media help link are all visible. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, with a few minor comments.


 * This reads awkwardly to me: "A 2006 review of Asian nuthatches suggested that there are still unresolved problems in nuthatch taxonomy and proposed splitting the genus Sitta. This suggestion would move ...". should that be something like "... with the proposal to split the genus ..."? What suggestion?


 * "The law reduced bureaucracy and made it easier for developers to build tourism facilities ...". Shouldn't that be "tourist facilities"?


 * "For the few species on which data are available ...". I know that data is strictly the plural of datum, but even the OECD now concedes the use of data as singular: "... data is available" certainly sounds much more natural to me anyway.


 * Overall a nice, attractively laid out, and informative article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.