Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Perijá tapaculo/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2015.

Perijá tapaculo

 * Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Perijá tapaculo is a tiny, shy, rare little bird that lives in tiny burrows in remote South American mountain ranges (some of which are difficult to access due to guerrilla warfare), and this means almost nothing can be written about it. Regardless, some enterprising ornithologists have written about it anyway, and their writings, accompanied by some appealing imagery, are summarised in this new FAC submission. The article has reached GA status, and then had valuable suggestions and additions at peer review by Cwmhiraeth and J Milburn. Amongst a large number of other improvements, these additions also mean that, despite its elusiveness, readers can now listen to the tiny bird's song if they wish. This very small and insignificant bird, which may or may not soon be no longer with us, deserves an outstanding article about it as well as deserving to be saved from extinction, and all suggestions for improvements will be very gratefully received. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim
Hi, I'll add comments as I read Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Any known predators or parasites?
 * No, although its size and cuteness makes it unlikely that it is the apex predator in its range. It could be assumed that its predators are similar to those of the rest of its genus and particularly its most closely related and nearby species, but I am nervous about straying too far into original research, and therefore am unsure whether and what to add. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Adults have neutral grey heads... It is a secretive&mdash;singular or plural?
 * Thank you for spotting this. I've replaced the pronoun at the start of the second sentence. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Males have breasts mixed with pale buff &mdash; perhaps males have some buff markings on their breasts?
 * Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a secretive bird that is difficult to observe&mdash;tautology?
 * Yes, I have re-worded this slightly. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * the Perijá tapaculo is secretive and difficult to observe&mdash; tautology Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The female call and song differ from most other species in the genus&mdash; "from those of"
 * Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The male call is short and quick&mdash; what's the difference between "short" and "quick"
 * Thanks. I've cut this sentence entirely and made a fix to the previous one (the call outlined should have referred to both genders, not just females). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * builds its nests in underground cavities about 12 cm (4.7 in) in...&mdash; these look like the dimensions of the nest, not the cavity which is the subject of this sentence
 * I've made a slight tweak. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The nests are accessed by a short tunnel&mdash; you haven't said the nests are closed yet, or does this refer to the cavity?
 * I'm not sure this needs changing; the article mentions the nests being in "underground cavities". Maybe I've missed something. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused. Is the cavity self-excavated? You write as if you are describing a cup nest, but you don't say that. If the nest is enclosed, then the tunnel could be part of the nest, rather than the cavity, like Red-rumped Swallow Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This issue has now been dealt with by the reviewer. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, a major problem. You have just two references, primary sources by the same authors. We normally need secondary sources to meet the reliability criteria. I don't think that this article can pass without a wider range of references. I don't think, for example, that a primary source is adequate for discussing the taxonomy of the family, when there are good sources like Handbook of Birds of the World. You also don't indicate a subspecies name(s) before it reached species status, and, crucially you don't provide a good secondary source that recognises this as a species. At the moment it amounts to "It's a species because we wrote the paper and we say it is". I'm not opposing yet, because it may be fixable with help, and otherwise it's a good read Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2,450 m needs conversion Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may be conflating two senses in which a source can be "primary". The sources cited in this article peer-reviewed journal articles; surely the holy grail of reliability per Identifying reliable sources. I would have thought that they would only really be "primary sources" (in the problematic sense) if we were writing about the journal or the author. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but where other sources exist, they should be used rather than depending on the work of just one research team. I've sent Thine Antique Pen some other stuff to pick over, and I think this should allay my concerns, I'll continue commenting soon. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Looks pretty good now, I'm happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Minor quibble only: I'd recommend archiving all the hyperlinks in sources with archivedate= and archiveurl= fields, with links from Internet Archive. This should hopefully increase posterity, over time. And it sure would be nice if you could create even a short sourced stub about Serranía de Los Motilones. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Cirt. I have archived all possible links with Internet Archive links; I was unable to archive the Mongabay news article due to a restriction on robots crawling the site in its robots.txt page. I created a short stub about the Serranía de Los Motilones range. Many thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth
The article looks good; here are a few minor points I noticed.
 * "The Perijá tapaculo is a secretive bird and therefore difficult to observe, and thus its ecology is poorly known." - I think this sentence could be better expressed.
 * Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "It is partially protected by ..." - You can't be protected by a bird reserve, only by living in one!
 * Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The word "morphology" is used in both the second and third sentence. Can you avoid this?
 * Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The use of the word "identical" in the next sentence is confusing. Perhaps you could use the word "separated" later in the sentence.
 * Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Its difficult to know how museum specimens could be separated by voice analysis!
 * Fixed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "The call and song differ from those of most other species in the genus, composed of two short churrs repeating up to 65 times at 0.5 to 3 second intervals." - This sentence needs a verb in its second half.
 * Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Does this description apply to the call or to the song?
 * The call, sorry. Fixed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the description of the nest should come earlier in the paragraph about reproduction.
 * I've moved it up. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I've responded to them all. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the improvements made and am now supporting the promotion of this article, which seems to be as comprehensive as is possible for such a poorly known species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Auree

 * Support - my comments below have been addressed. A neat and very readable little article on a cute, newly described bird. While I'm no expert, this seems to be as comprehensive as can be. That being said, I do a few minor queries and suggestions.  Auree   ★ ★  00:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Should its conservation status be included in the infobox? I see some articles on animals that have this, others that don't, so I'm not sure.
 * I do not believe so, as the conservation status given in the taxobox is normally the official IUCN categorisation, which this species has not received. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikilink endangered
 * Endangered species is for officially IUCN-categorised species, and the species has not yet been categorised. I think that linking it would imply it to be categorised by the IUCN. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but should neutral-grey be hyphenated?
 * I believe "neutral grey" is correct. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "details of morphology" - sounds a bit unusual to my layman ears. Does "morphological features" work?
 * Thank you for your suggestion. Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikilink subspecies?
 * Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I know it's hard to otherwise describe, but the repetition of "average" in the description section reads a bit tediously.
 * Reworded section. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikilink tawny?
 * Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Juveniles of this subspecies have dull ventral plumage, while the Perijá tapaculo has more yellow plumage." - should plumage be treated as an indefinite noun like that? I'm tempted to say "a dull ventral plumage" and "a more yellow plumage".
 * I don't think it should be treated as an indefinite noun, and have modified it accordingly. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "The diet of the species is little known, but studies of the stomach contents of seven specimens suggested that they fed exclusively on insects." - should this be "suggest that they feed"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but from a non-expert standpoint, I'd assume that studying the stomach contents of specifically these specimens would undoubtedly reveal (rather than suggest) that insects were indeed consumed, and based on this an inference (or suggestion) be made about the diet of the species in general.
 * This is indeed a difficult one, and the current wording is the result of previous comments earlier in the peer review. My understanding - based on the comments there from people with more expertise than me - is that seven specimens is a very small number; the contents of the stomachs of only those specimens does not prove anything about the diet over the whole life of even those few specimens, and therefore moving to an inference about the species as a whole is just slightly too far. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Interwiki-link "globular"?
 * Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "lives on the edge of and under the canopy of" - a little clunky
 * Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "They estimate that" - after one-and-a-half sentences or so, it wasn't immediately clear who "they" are, but that may just be me :P
 * Clarified, thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "The authors believe that to protect the Perijá tapaculo, Colombia should consider rapid implementation of conservation measures" - Can this be worded a bit more neutrally?
 * Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikilink "guerilla group"
 * Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. I am satisfied with the changes and the above responses -- switching to support :)  Auree   ★ ★  22:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Source review

 * FN 1: editors are available for this work (del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E)
 * Added, thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * FN 8: check publisher
 * I consider the publisher to be correct and have linked Christopher Helm. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * FN 19: need Spanish titles for Spanish sources (providing translation using the  field is optional).
 * Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

 Auree  ★ ★  01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review! I have responded to all of your comments. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The bulk of the article is from the French-wiki article (via modified Google Translation), where it is and has been a GA. This is not credited on the article's Talk page, and should be, via the proper template at the top of the Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is now in place. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * Missed this one, I didn't realise this was a bird by the title alone. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One concern is that, being named so recently, there has not been time for other researchers to react in press to the conclusions of the first description, and we therefore have to rely on that alone. This may therefore be a problem with FA criterion d (neutrality), as well as "coverage". Has any of the other commentators considered this issue? ? If somehow acceptable, it wouldn't be a problem for me, but it would set a precedent.
 * I don't think it would set a precedent; compare it to some of my mushroom articles (specifically, Gymnopilus maritimus, Xeromphalina setulipes and Inocybe saliceticola) or perhaps some of our small mammal FAs from Ucucha (Miniopterus aelleni and Macrotarsomys petteri, for example). Of course, you may think that these were promoted in error, that expectations have changed or that the odd reference to these species outside of their authors work (or the ones which now exist) make all the difference. On that note, time to see if I can update my fungal articles... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, seems this has not been seen as a problem before, will continue the review before long. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a paragraph about specimens collected in the 1940s, but the text doesn't make it clear whether these are now considered part of the new species.
 * Thanks, I've slightly adjusted the wording. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Any info on when the species diverged?
 * It seems not so, with the only mention being that its level of divergence is significant. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph under Distribution and habitat states the bird is not sympatric with congeners, then you mention two examples of the opposite. Or would they be considered parapatric?
 * I've reworded this slightly. It has not been conclusively identified as sympatric or parapatric, although there is a possibility of sympatry. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears several specimens were killed by the discoverers? Seems to be slightly controversial these days when describing threatened birds.
 * The wording is, perhaps, deliberately, vague. The sources, like the article, use the word "collected". From some of the images of the specimens, though, yes it would appear they were killed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Everything looks good then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review and support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.