Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russet Sparrow/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 16:07, 16 March 2010.

Russet Sparrow

 * Nominator(s): —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that after several rounds of reviewing, this article now meets the FA criteria. Unlike the subjects of most existing bird FAs, the subject of this article is neither highly common in the English-speaking country (eg, American Goldfinch) nor rare (eg, Golden White-eye). It is however, well-known enough for this article to go into detail, to the extent that this is certainly the most detailed account of this bird in existence. The article is perhaps not so well-written and copyedited as many FAs—I would especially appreciate comments on the writing—, and a distribution map is lacking. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I went through the article in detail a few days ago, and believe it to meet all FA criteria. It is comprehensive, has no problems in the writing that I saw, and is well-referenced to reliable sources. It has no dab links, or dead external links, and good images with suitable alt text. The lack of a distribution map is a pity, but not enough for me not to support. Ucucha 20:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your earlier comments. Your opinion of support is worth more than those of several other users, in my opinion. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as GA reviewer. Slight COI, fellow WP:BIRD, member, but my involvement in this article is only as a reviewer and commenter (and maybe map creator if I can get it right). Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your earlier comments. You also added the leg and bill information, but I would have used the exact same wording had I remembered or been asked to. Thanks for adding a distribution map—I was surprised by some things of the distribution according to the HBW, but I suppose most distribution maps are only approximate. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great map! It might be good to also include the subspecies, but I suppose that is difficult because of the interplay with seasonal range changes. Ucucha 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the only distinct subspecies boundary is the very easy to find cinnamommeus-rutilans split. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support (COI as member of WP:BIRD and having seen the bird in the wild) - The article is quite comprehensive, well-written, illustrated and well-sourced. A couple of nitpicks:Shyamal (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...sparrows are absent, the Russet Sparrow acts as the typical sparrow of human habitations" - "acts as" suggests volition - maybe "is" would be better
 * I'll change it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The flight of all sparrows is swift.." - is it a bounding or undulating flight as in some sparrows?
 * Not in sources. I think a good deal of the passerines fly like this. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the answer is yes, but noyt so much—its flight is "more direct" than that of the Tree Sparrow, as noted. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Image and alt text review All images have apporpriate sources and licences. Alt text is present but needs some work. The lead image needs to make it clear that the cream is below and the russet is the upperparts. The two other images of males have repetitive alt text, you've already described the bird at the main image and in the text, so "male perching  on a thin bare branch among young leaves" would do.  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Altered the alt texts for the males. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and comment COI as member of WP:BIRD. I was was asked to comment on this prior to FAC and made a few minor edits at that stage. Unsurprisingy I can't see much wrong with it now, although I'd like to see the alt text tweaked as above. Some of the paras seem over-long to me, but not a deal-breaker. Good effort  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to break up the paragraphs, but it is difficult to do so in many instances, the breeding section, in example. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've dealt with the matter of excessively long paragraphs. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Add a new subsection heading Breeding. Move the statement about the cuckoos to the end of that paragraph so that it doesn't interrupt the flow of the description of the breeding sparrows. Amandajm (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did as suggested. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support (moral or otherwise) as WP:BIRD - apologies for not getting here earlier. Had been meaning to look at this page for a while but never got round to it. Made some minor tweaks. The only other thing I was going to add was the latin meaning for rutilans in the taxo section if I get time a bit later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Stylistically, we'd been putting taxonomy above description in bird articles (I find this good as one can then place images in the latter section which is now nicely further down the page past the taxobox etc.) - but not a deal-breaker or anything.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I rate text flow above image placement, and prefer this since a description is the most basic information on an animal. I know what rutilans means, and have extensive citations for the meaning of Passer, but no citations for the meaning of rutilans, so thanks. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "... political sensitivity of the Brahmaputra River's". I think this needs to be explained better. People can go to China on holiday. Snowman (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No westerners and few others have visited that area of China and India since the 1890s, as far as I know. That satisfactory? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not an explanation of any political sensitivity. The in-line reference is from 1988, which I guess is inadequate to describe any current political sensitivity. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some parts of that region require permits even for Indian citizens and "westerners" are not necessarily more competent in the ornithology of the region. Shyamal (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the phrasing "no westerners and few others" since I don't know the precise details of permitting in India; in that bit of China nobody can enter except soldiers, trusted officials, and residents. I don't think an explanation of politics belongs here. Rather, it belongs at articles such as Sino-Indian relations and Tibet. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it isn't sufficiently important to an article on sparrows. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  19:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An graphical illustration of the phylogeny would help the presentation of the taxonomy section. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Phylogeny is uncertain.


 * "The Russet Sparrow sometimes is the sparrow of houses": seems to me to be rather vague. Snowman (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a more detailed description, in the habitat section, I believe. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the other section, but that does not change the vagueness of the part I have mentioned. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the article does not explain pair bonding much. Do they have a new partner with each nest or every year? Snowman (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sparrows says this is not recorded. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is the sparrow flying vertically downwards in this image File:Hibiscus and Sparrow.jpg. Is the image rotated? Snowman (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll check. I don't think it is rotated. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is not rotated—the signature is aligned correctly. The arrangement must be stylistic. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very odd to see an image sparrow flying vertically downwards. Are there any other examples of this style? or is it the only example? There may be more to this. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, check out this image of birdies from the same source as the image in the article. The birds at the top fly straight down, the one at the bottom left flies horizontally. Moreover none of the other paintings by this artist have been rotated. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "but in the northernmost part of its range it breeds by the sea.": To me this seems to be inconsistent with the range map. The summer range in yellow does not follow the coasts, but it includes entire islands. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does not state that it breeds exclusively by the sea. Besides, distribution maps such as this are inevitably approximate. Thank you for your comments. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The range map does not say that it is approximate. I am not happy with the inconsistencies in the article. The article says that it breeds by the sea and by good faith I would take this to mean that it does not breed in the centre of a large island perhaps a 50 to 100 miles from the coast, which is my interpretation of the summer range in the map in the north. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All range maps are approximate, unless you create them using survey data in GIS or something, and then they are only ever as good as the last survey. But perhaps the text could be clarified slightly to make it clear that it is down to sea level rather than just sea level (I understood what was meant). Sabine's Sunbird  talk  03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added an "often" in the text body. I'd like to keep the by the sea, since another implication is that the Russet Sparrow is littoral to the north. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes http://www.birdtheme.org/mainlyimages/index.php?spec=2200&code=118 a reliable source?
 * I didn't really think about that. A lot of bird GAs and FAs cite Scharning's website, though, and it is the only complete site on this I know of. &mdash;innotata (Talk &bull; Contribs) 19:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how reliable this site needs to be, since it's just showing the stamps. The artist's name is on the stamp, so the only issue is whether the bird is correctly identified. Innonata checked that others agreed with the stated species. The site makes no other statements or claims about the stamps. Also List of birds on stamps of Japan links this stamp to the impeccable Stanley and Gibbon and Yvert et Tellier stamp catalogues (Russet sparrow (Passer rutilans rutilans) - Japanese nyûnai-suzume 6/10/1999, 90 y. (SG 2639 ; YT 2665)). Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Another concern with this site is whether or not the stamp image is copyrighted and whether or not it's legal for this site to host the image of the stamp if the stamp is indeed copyrighted. I do not pretend to even begin to have the knowledge required for that, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For the reasons given by Jimfbleak, I think it'd be best and OK to leave the article as it is, until I can get citations from sources like the stamp catalogues mentioned. I don't know much about copyright either, but most stamps are protected by non-copyright laws (and hence many stamps are on the Commons), and it should be of little concern to us if other sites follow copyright laws to begin with. &mdash;innotata (Talk &bull; Contribs) 19:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, it is; linking to a copyright violation is itself a copyright violation. Ucucha 19:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it? Well, it is unlikely the site is a copyright violation. Most people commenting here don't know much about copyright, should we remove the link because of Ealdgyth's suspicion? &mdash;innotata (Talk &bull; Contribs) 19:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this page, there is no copyright in Gambia. Ucucha 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Scharning's website is based mostly on sources which would be considered reliable, according to this page. I'll try to find better references to cite, but I'm not sure I can. Until then, it looks like it would be best to keep the article as it is. &mdash;innotata (Talk &bull; Contribs) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.