Wikipedia:Peer review/Barn Swallow/archive1

Barn Swallow
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been improved since GA (map, more details, wrote article for only redlink), I'd like to get it to FA

Thanks, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This has become a really excellent article&mdash;good work Jim! A couple of quick comments:
 * You might mention in the description section that Barn Swallows in significant portions of the world (Americas, much of Asia) have reddish underparts, since the only underpart colour mentioned in that section is off-white.
 * You use "Barn Swallow" through most of the article, but revert to "Swallow" in the literature/culture sections. Other than in quoted material, it should probably still say Barn Swallow.
 * Is the swallow festival of Capistrano, which is a pretty old (for NA anyway) and sizeable event, worth mentioning in the culture section? Strike this one&mdash;they're Cliff Swallows! MeegsC | Talk 08:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, went through with the proverbial fine-toothed comb&mdash;here are a few more comments! :) MeegsC | Talk 13:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the lead, the sentence that states this is the “most widespread species of swallow” will probably need a reference. Putting something like that without verification seems to be the sort of info that draws fire from FA reviewers.
 * You mention it isn’t endangered “as a species”. Are any subspecies endangered?  If so, which ones?  If not, I’d remove the “as a species” clause.
 * Rather than “there are several subspecies which...”, you might want to consider putting the actual number. If they don’t all migrate, say something like “There are x subspecies, most of which...”
 * The Welcome Swallow, whose range overlaps some of the Barn Swallow’s wintering range in northern Australia, is another potential confusion species. Given that you’ve made mention of how to tell it from Red-chested Swallow, you might want to do the same for Welcome Swallow.
 * Has there been any consensus about how subspecies sections should be organized? Recent FA articles seem to have them in bulleted lists and it seems to be a little easier to find information that way.  Not a biggie, but we may want to start building some sort of standard setup.
 * Are wintering habitats the same as breeding ones? You mention reedbeds for nighttime flocking post-breeding, for instance; are the birds more frequently found near the coast or large ponds/lakes on wintering grounds?
 * The first paragraph in the Feeding section seems to jump around a bit. Can some of the sentences be rearranged to make the section flow better?
 * There are a lot of 1-2 sentence paragraphs in the Breeding section. Can some of them be combined?
 * I would guess that the swallows nested on Native American longhouses and hogans rather than tepees&mdash;the angle of a tepee’s walls, and the fact that it is a mobile structure which is packed flat when moved would make it an unlikely candidate for a nest site!
 * Is the punctuation ending the last Shakespeare quote correct? It seems to stop in the middle of a sentence.  Perhaps ellipses would be in order?
 * There was a recent spate of articles about the new cricket ground being built somewhere in South Africa for the next cricket world cup, and how it’s going to destroy a major Barn Swallow wintering area. Might be worth a mention.
 * There are a few places where there is a gap between sentence punctuation and footnote indications. These should be eliminated.


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A delayed entry. The journal references probably do not need the access date to be included as the contents are static unlike web-page citations that need the access date. Shyamal (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)