Talk:American white ibis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll mark Y comments when I think they're resolved, highlight N any that are unresolved when most others are done, and strike out any of comments that I later decide are mistaken. I'll sign each of my comments, so we can see who said what - please do the same.

I'll mark the review {{inuse}} when I'm working on it, as edit conflicts are frustrating. If you think I've forgotten to remove {{inuse}}, please leave a message at my Talk page. Please free to use {{inuse}} with your own signature when you're working.

I'll read the article through first, then give comments. --Philcha (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Coverage

• Y I see no obvious gaps at the top level. I may have comments in specific sections. --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Structure

• Good in general. --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Later we should look at the title of section "Status". --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy and evolution

• Y Perhaps retitle to "Taxonomy", as I see no sign of the evolutionary history - unless you find good sources for some ancestors or siblings in the "tree of life". --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

agree. If something does turn up we can re-examine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Thanks. Where do you get the time and energy, Casliber? --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y I suggest "... by Linnaeus in the landmark 1758 10th edition of his Systema Naturae, ...", as "landmark" smacks of advertising. --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The 10th edition was the one which marks the beginning of binomial taxonomy - I am ok with leaving it out but do you think some descriptor is needed or a link enough to explain? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think "landmark" needs a citation as it is a strong assertion and the article needs to explain what's so special about the 10th. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y Any other names beside Scolopax albus and Eudocimus albus in the history of it's taxonomy? E.g. Portia_fimbriata#Taxonomy and the taxonomy of other jumping spiders is full of renamings, mis-identifications, etc. --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

not as far as I know, but will double check. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Smithsonian Marine Station (already cited) has a synonym Platalea ajaja, although without a taxonomic authority. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it is a misapplied name (?) as the combination is used fro the Roseate Spoonbill (?) Nothing coming up on google. Will keep my eyes open. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Y Please wiki-link binomial name. --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y You could combine "It was given its current binomial name by Johann Georg Wagler in 1832 when he erected the new genus Eudocimus. It is one of two species of American ibis in the genus, the other being the Scarlet Ibis (E. ruber)", e.g. ""It was given its current binomial name ... new genus Eudocimus, whose only other species currently is ...". --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y "Cristina Ramo and Benjamin Busto have recommended they be classified as a single species" begs a few questions:
  • When, and is there much debate about it? --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, haven't seen much but definitely will explore. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • OK. --Philcha (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Y Perhaps "have tentatively recommended", per Ramo & Busto's article? --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

changed to "proposed" Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "they have proposed that these birds be classified as a single species", to avoid 2 "they"s together. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Y Are the hybrid offspring fertile with each other and/or with both/either of the 2 parent stocks? This can be complex, e.g. see Liger and Tiglon, where: the hybrids' visible characteristics depend on the sexes of the parents; female ligons appear fully fertile while male ligons are practically infertile; female tiglons apparently produce offspring with both lions and tigers, while I don't know about male tiglons. Scarlet Ibis suggests (without inline citations) that the 2 ibises interbreed easily, with successive generations become paler pink in one area where a few Scarlets were introduced into a White territory. --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That suggests the hybrids are, but the florida interbreeding is not a natural hybrid zone as they are zoo escapees. Mallards do teh same with Black Ducks here in Oz too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of a citation to support or oppose what Scarlet Ibis says about hybrids being fertile for several generation? If supported, this article should say e.g. "inter-breed" rather than "copulate". (Some jumping spiders copulate inter species in labs, but produce no fertile eggs) --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

having trouble finding the Florida material. The venezuela material specifies witnessing mixed pairs and mixed mating, and seeing intermediate-plumaged birds. Have tried to keep as close to what the source reported as possible (without paraphrasing, naturally) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Y Should this and Scarlet Ibis merged? Or alternatively create a common article (what name?) with most of the content and small articles about the American White and the Scarlet, each giving the colouration and ecology of the relevant population? We should resolve all these issues before going any further. --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The standard way we talk about biology articles in birdbooks for laypeople is by species. Some well-differentiated subspecies (like Hooded Crow and Carrion Crow) were always listed separately (though those two have since been split by most). The books that I've seen have these as separate entries. The distribution, description, naming history are all easy to keep separate, and any studies in peer-reivewed literature best kept to which taxon they were on. I think most will have been on one or the other, hence keeping structure as is is most prudent. However, literature on the both definitely should go in genus article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

NB: To keep some sense of order and framework, and to settle arguments, the birds wikiproject has adopted the IOC bird list as a consensus reference to align with - they still regard the two as separate species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So much for the "biological species" concept. IIRC Origin of Species says species are just varieties writ large. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y For "which is seen in at least one guidebook", how about e.g. "which has been followed by least one guidebook" (adjusted for preceding phrases if needed). --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'll pay that. changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y I don't remember "Here they observed mating and pairing between the two species,as well as pale orange birds, and white ibises with occasional orange feathers" before, but it's confusing: "observed mating and pairing between the two species" seems to duplicate "... reported hybridization ..." above; and "as well as pale orange birds, and white ibises with occasional orange feathers" seems to describe a separate hybridization, and the phrasing is very poor. --Philcha (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I went back to the source to clarify exactly what was observed, plus what has been observed elsewhere - the two descriptions of birds just indicates speculative (but pretty obvious) hybrids. I'll read it again and massage the prose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Update - Hybridization is the presence of interbreeding - the evidence then follows as the authors saw (1) mixed pairs, and (2) intermediate birds. I have tried to trim a bit - do you want me to trim more?Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. At first I thought your "... observed individuals of the two species mating and pairing, as well as hybrid ibises ..." was redundancy, but realise that it's strict empiricism. --Philcha (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Description

• Y The 2 sources for sizes differ. I'd play safe by showing the range of size statistics, combining the 2 sources. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

d'oh - used the different subpage with all the size/wt ranges listed. These ranges cover the other ref too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

THanks. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Y Citation "Sexual Dimorphism in the White Ibis" shows a deficiency in {{cite doi}} - it doesn't show the "work" (The Wilson Bulletin) or publisher (The University of New Mexico), which I think is needed here to show that it's a Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources, as this is a "minor" source. I have little time for some policies and many guidelines, but IMO WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are absolutely essential - and WP:WIAGA agrees.</rant> --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added some parameters including link to fulltext, jstor and issn numbers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not what I expected, but good enough. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y IMO "However, there is some sexual dimorphism in size — males average significantly larger than females, in terms of flight structure, bill size and weight. The American White Ibis has been found to be most dimorphic in terms of weight and least dimorphic in terms of flight structure" needs to be re-phrased. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Y What does "flight structure" mean? Wings and tail feathers (and parson's nose AKA pygostyle). If "flight structures" needs to appear more than once, I'd explain it the first time. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add that - have reread the article and added the most salient points, and removed material about wings etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Y I feel that better phrasing would remove the partly redundant "The American White Ibis has been found to be most dimorphic in terms of weight and least dimorphic in terms of flight structure". --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Y "Like other species of ibis, the White Ibis flies with neck and legs outstretched, often in long, loose lines" has no citation. Does individuals share the work of cutting through the air, in the way geese do? --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

aha, found article - reffed, and yes liekly due to aerodynamic efficiency. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticed earlier that "Like other species of ibis, the White Ibis flies with neck and legs outstretched, often in long, loose lines or 'V' formations" is clumsy and unclear. How about e.g. "Like other species of ibis, White Ibis individuals fly with neck and legs outstretched, and groups often fly in long, loose lines or 'V' formations"? --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"The reason is unclear but may be because aerodynamic efficiency is increased" is unclear to me. Contrast the close formation of geese in flight. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Birds of eastern and Central North America p. 51 (Roger Tory Peterson, Virginia Marie Peterson; already cited) says, "... "roller-coaster" strings, flapping and gliding, and often soar in circles", which may be more informative. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

agree - this slots nicely on the end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Similar species

• Y Please w-link Wood Stork. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y The source says "... immature Glossy Ibis ...", i.e. immature in both cases. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

good catch. fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• Y I find the 1st para confusing, as I'm unsure which parts apply only the breeding range. --Philcha (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

rejigged to list breeding areas first, then clarify it extends further inland when nonbreeding Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The map at White Ibis — Birds of North America Online (Cornell U., already cited) suggests that the non-breeding range extends north to Virginia and south to along the east coast of Mexico. Are your geography and eyes better than mine? --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My geography of the US isn't as good as Australia - i.e. I'm not as good as looking at a blank US map and intuiting where some of the inland states are. That said, I used the map from the journal article discussing hybridisation, which was written by scientists from South America, so adding in the breeding/non-breeding from this one makes good sense. I will adjust map accordingly. And choose an easier to see shade of light blue :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Y "Outside the nesting season, the White Ibis’s habitat selection is highly variable ..." suggests that this ibis is more selective in the nesting season. So in which types of habitats does it nest? --Philcha (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, tricky - breeding habitat discussed in the appropriate section. Not sure if adding here is helpful or reduplicative....will look at lead to see if we can touch on matters there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Update - read this again and overhauled - essentially the ibis moves to more coastal areas but it is because of summer flooding in the area. Material I have found on the range extending elsewhere in nonbreeding season does not go into detail about habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I ce's to "marshes, wetlands, and mangrove swamps ..." - do UK and Oz differ on this? The section looks good. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Behaviour

• I've just noted the UK English "Behaviour". OTOH "Description" uses "molt". I suggest USA English in this article as the bird is a New World species and the sources generally use USA English. --Philcha (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

agree about US spelling being a good idea. Will try to change all Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y I find the 1st para confusing, e.g.:
  • Y At "The species' sexual dimorphism is probably a result of natural selection as being larger in size overall is able to increase both the reproductive success and survival of the male", why would this not apply to females? I don't know any one source that would survey the principles behind sexual dimorphism, but Sexual dimorphism provide sources. <OR>In mammals, males twice the size of females appear in "tournament" species ("winner takes all") as in lions and walruses, the dominant male reigns for a few years and dies soon after being deposed. Where males are less larger, serial adultery is common - for example in a general curve humans' males relative size is consistent with 1.3 females per successful males. At the other end, spider males are usually smaller and male angler fish are minute. Perhaps it may be better to skip the principles, which apply to many species, and concentrate on a full and clear account of the facts. E.g. I know the principles of sexual dimorphism for spiders but would not put them in species or genus articles. --Philcha (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The study was on this species. Agree about section needing a cleanup. The nominator added it but I am having some trouble accessing fulltexts via university last couple of days. Now read it. Basically the author of the study wanted to investigate if males with their longer bills were more successful or fed differently to females, and his observations revealed they didn't. The rest of the article is hypothesis, but does note the bill used in mating and aggressive behaviour. Will reword section Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Re "... dimorphism is unclear, as to date, no differences ..." provokes a tag "when" - tags are sometimes justified :-( How about "as of July 2011"? --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Would "no differences between the sexes in feeding success rates or the foraging behavior have been observed" be clearer. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I simply removed date references - reads fine without any temporal qualifier. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Y Re "Furthermore, the male birds' larger size equates to increased energy requirements", how about "As males are larger, they need more food than females"? Or have I missed other implications --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

both good rewordings, and used. No you weren't missing other implications Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now in "Foraging". --Philcha (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Y I'm afraid I find "Natural selection has been implicated as being larger and longer-billed may increase reproductive success, and the bill is used by the adult male in mating displays and fighting between males" so unclear that I can't make a suggestion. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The paper itself focusses entirely on feeding. The mating and fighting are not explored in the article, and the sentence is somewhat speculative. I have removed it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Y I can see how males' bills may be weapons in fights, but use how? E.g. rapiers, cudgels, wrestling (like antlers)? --Philcha (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen this discussed in the sources. The speculative sentence has been removed now anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Y As a result of recent removals of speculative content, this section now contains only 3 sentences, and 2 different topics: "The origin of the species' sexual dimorphism is unclear ... they need more food than females" and "The American White Ibis begins breeding in its third summer. The oldest member ... 4 months after being banded." I'd put the 1st topic in "Foraging", and the 2nd somewhere in "Breeding" ("my" invertebrate articles have a section "Reproduction and lifecycle"). --Philcha (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • YI placed the foraging bit in foraging, but found it difficult to slot the lifespan stuff in breeding. If goes better in description after juvenile plumage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Y Re "In addition, larger bills also allow the males to probe deeper in the water while foraging, thereby increasing foraging effectiveness", does the article mean, e.g., "While the larger bills are weapons in fights between males, as a by-product they enable males to probe deeper in the water while foraging" (which would the avoid duplication of "foraging"). --Philcha (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

nevermind. the author proposes that a longer bill could be more advantageous in foraging...but observes no difference in foraging behaivour or success. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, a refutation of a hypothesis is useful in science but less commonly useful in WP. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y Re "The oldest member of the species recorded in captivity has been over 20 years of age, ...", how about "was over 20 years of age"? --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Breeding

• Y Inconsistency between "The White Ibis is a monogamous avian species which breeds in huge colonies ..." (para 1) and "Although the White Ibis is predominantly monogamous ..., the male often flies off to engage in extra pair copulation ...". --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"predominantly" added to lede. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y Re "where nests within a rookery can range from the tens to the hundreds", I'd prefer "colony" as I think "rookery" suggests rather smaller birds while an adult White Ibis is about 2 lb, and would need quite a strong bough. (I weighed 2 cans of baked beans to check how these felt, but didn't climb trees :-D) --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

agree. removed word. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y I feel that sections "Mating" and "Nesting" are rather confusing, with no apparent sequence of events. How about: colony site selection (a collective decision?); pair formation (for one season or longer-term?); nest building; copulation, including adultery; any giving of food by the male to the "pregnant" female; protecting eggs and chicks, and feeding chicks; male starved; nest predators; cause of nest failure. Then we can think about number and names of sub-sections. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

agree. will get to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've realised (doh!) that the article has been using "White Ibis" as short for "American White Ibis". I think this needs to change to "American White Ibis" or e.g. "this ibis", as there's also an Australian White Ibis! --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, working on it. Need to sleep now. Free time patchy +++ got most I think.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you finished the restructure of "Breeding" --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I felt much happier about the logical flow of the section now. What do you think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The logical flow is much better, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In this section, the next part of the job is the prose, I'm afraid. Current faults include: redundancy, repeating a word in the same sentence, using complex words when simpler ones will do the job, and poor sentence structure. Examples:

• Y"The nests can number from the tens to the hundreds, ... as well as prey availability during the particular breeding season" has multiple faults :-( --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Y "In periods of poor prey availability, ... than in periods of good prey availability". --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y rejigged previous three bits. (I didn't write 'em...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• YI think "The female chooses the site and builds the nest, usually in the branches of a tree or shrub, which is often over water. The males also assist in the nest building process by bringing nest material" would be better if re-ordered so all of site selection precedes all of building. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

yes - rejigged. Actually had a bit of a rejig and pruning of words all over. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y Etc., I'm afraid. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

YThis section now looks OK.

Diet

• Y IMO "The American White Ibis is a bird with a generalist diet" is both redundant and probably wrong - as far I can see it's a carnivore, not an omnivore. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed sometime. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Y Re "Being small in size and having a brief nesting cycle, it has a low energy expenditure and its low energy demands can usually be met through the consumption of relatively abundant small prey":
  • "Being small in size ..." compared with what? --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "... has a low energy expenditure and its low energy demands can ..." compared with what? And size is not the only influence on energy expenditure, e.g. in UK in winter small birds (e.g. sparrow) lose about 30% of their weight overnight while maintaining their temperature. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

All these bits are from a paper comparing it with the larger Wood Stork. I've removed them as the comparison is not helpful to the general reader and added some useful info from the article, however I need to rejig this whole section. Will alert when done.' Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y I think "Prey includes a wide and diverse variety of aquatic organisms such as aquatic insects and small fishes, with crayfish and other crustaceans being its preferred source of food" could be more concise, e.g. "It prefers to eat crayfish and other crustaceans, but also takes aquatic insects and small fishes." My suggestion excludes "aquatic organisms" as that phrase might be interpreted to include molluscs, and as far as I can see the American White Ibis does not have the tools for molluscs except for slugs. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah agreed. changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y Re "Outside the nesting season, the diet is highly variable. Depending on the both region and habitat, which affects the abundance and types of prey available for consumption, the White Ibis would feed on different prey":
  • Y Which White Ibis? Being an Aussie, you should show US ornithologists the errors of their ways :-D --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Y These 2 sentences should be combined and more concise. "this Ibis" may help. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

actually alot of this bit is redundant. trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y Re "... the most frequently consumed prey are insects, such as beetles and fly larvae":
  • Y I suggest "the most frequent prey are ..." --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

yes, I see - "consumed" is implied in prey, hence redundant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Y Does "insects, such as beetles and fly larvae" mean only larvae of beetles? If not, I guess the easy fix is "fly larvae and beetles". --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

agreed. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y At "In North American, crustaceans, mostly crayfish, are the main prey", I suggest e.g. "Generally in North America the main prey are crustaceans, mostly crayfish", as the following sentences are exceptions (I hope). --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

good point, done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y "the diet would be primarily made up of crayfish, while those that feed in willow ponds ate predominantly fish. American White Ibises that feed in mangrove swamps would focus on crabs" changes to past tense to mixed for no reason. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

past tenses and subjunctives removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

THanks. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y At "The species is found in a mixed-species foraging flock with the Glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), and the two species select different food items with little overlap, as the latter feeds mainly on grain", see the cited source, Common Coastal Birds of Florida & the Caribbean (David W. Nellis) p. 151:
  • The overlap is in flooded fields. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The White Ibis takes 48% crabs, 37% aquatic insects, 15% fish; and the Glossy takes 58% grains, 26% insects, 15% crabs. So the Glossy Ibis is an omnivore and does not prefers the White's favourite prey. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the habitat and a little on the most popular prey selection - did you want to see all the precentages in the article? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your change without the precentages are fine. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y I think the para (almost) "Density also has a major impact on prey selection and the relationship between prey abundance and consumption and differed among various preys.... a positive relationship between density and prey catchability" could be clearer and more concise. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote and relocated last para into preceding para, and moved mixed-species material to make last para. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Y The whole section looks fine now. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Foraging

• Y What is (such as pecking, groping and) "head-swinging"? --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

explained Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten later. Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y Passage "For the most part, the American White Ibis forage for food by tactile probing, ... often attacking and robbing the ibis of food, due to increased handling time" should remove redundancies (e.g. at "increases the chance of theft by other birds such Herons and Egrets, which are often found to be foraging close by and often attacking and robbing the ibis of food, due to increased handling time") and make it all clearer and most concise. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

first two paras reworded and redudancies removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y At "Depending on the time of the year and season, the American White Ibis forages in different habitats. During the summer, it roams along the coast of tidal flats and mangrove swamps as the inland marshes after usually flooded. However, as the water level recedes in the fall, populations at the coast shift their foraging area inland, where they forage in inland marshes and swamplands":
  • Y Isn't "Depending on the time of the year and season, the American White Ibis forages in different habitats" redundant? --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

--> Foraging takes place in different habitats according to season Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • "Foraging takes place in different habitats according to season" is shorter but still IMO redundant, as just 2 sentences explain the shift from coastal to inland foraging. --Philcha (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

on rereading, agree is redundant and hence removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Y If so, the remaining para is short. How about moving it to the beginning of the 1st para, and then adjust phrasing. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Y Re shifting their foraging, about e.g. "populations at the coast shift their foraging area inland, where they forage in inland to marshes and swamplands"? --Philcha (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • d'oh...obvious! done.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Obvious only to omniscient reviews :-) --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Y "During the breeding season, adult male ibises have been observed to steal food from both young juveniles and feeding females that are neither its own offspring nor mate instead of foraging its own food by forcing its bill down the throat of its victim and extracting the ball of food that is meant for the young juvenile ibises" is long and complex. I can't see a major improvement, but suggest 2 small ones:
  • Y "adult male ibises have been observed to steal seen stealing food" --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Y "instead of foraging its own food" looks redundant. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Y After my rest, "During the breeding season, adult male ibises have been seen stealing food from young juveniles and feeding females that are neither its own offspring nor mate" confused me. How about e.g. "... adult male ibises have been seen stealing food from other males' juveniles and mates"? Your call, as I don't have full access to the source. --Philcha (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I reread the source and came up with "During the breeding season, adult male ibises have been recorded raiding other parent ibises feeding their young in the colony. They force their bill down the throat of the victim—either the parent about to disgorge their food or recently fed young—and extract the ball of food" tried to completely rework it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Erm, you didn't like the reword? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel that "During the breeding season, adult male ibises have been recorded raiding other parent ibises feeding their young in the colony" is so dense that it is very difficult to read (except as a Latin exercise :-) ). How about e.g. "During the breeding season, adult male ibises have been recorded as raiding other parent ibises who are feeding their young in the colony". --Philcha (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And then clarity the next sentence to show which is the predator and which the victim, e.g. "The predators force their bill down the throat of the victim ... ". --Philcha (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I preferred "raiders" as "predators" makes me think of eagles etc. did other too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, you pirate! --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y I'm afraid the rest of the para needs the same medicine. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

yes indeed. Now done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Y At first sight IMO "For the most part, the American White Ibis forages for food by tactile probing, which is the primarily foraging technique. It wades slowly through shallow water and sticks its long, downcurved bill into the substrate of the water body with its bill held at around 1 to 2 cm (0.4-0.8 in) agape at the tip, and probes by sweeping their long bills back and forth across the bottom to pick out organisms that are suitable for consumption" could be much more concise. E.g. "The American White Ibis mainly finds food by tactile probing as it wades slowly through shallow water and, keeping its long, downcurved bill about 1-2cm (0.4-0.8in) agape, sweeps back and forth across the bottom to pick out edible organisms"?
    Then I saw that "Probing varies from shallow nibbles to deep probes, and takes place while standing or walking. On land, the American White Ibis locates prey by sight and pecks, and does not have to insert its bill into the substrate. Groping with a wide open bill is a technique used by ibis in deeper water when alone, as is head swinging. In this last the ibis swings its wide open bill widely in open water. Other American White Ibis copy this type of foraging if they see one ibis doing it" looks partly repetition." Perhaps tactile probingfrom "... tactile probing ..." to the end of the para needs to be restructure to show foraging in water (long) and land (short). --Philcha (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, rejigged now - so it runs - normal probing/mention standing still/groping in deeper water/land Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Flows well. --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y Para "Smaller prey items are sought when other birds are around, ... forage for food together at the peripheral region of the group" seems to contain part that have little to do with each other:
  • Y "Smaller prey items are sought ... rob the ibis of its catch." IMO this has a few issues:
    • Y My impression from para 1 (? mistakenly) is that the American White Ibis takes small food anyway. If so, how smaller prey can it take when robbers are around? --Philcha (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

they really really try to avoid bigger items which get stolen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Philcha (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• • • Y Perhaps it should be part of the 1st para. --Philcha (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

paras rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• • • Y I'm sure "Smaller prey items are sought ... rob the ibis of its catch" can be written better, and avoid the passive voice. E.g. "When other birds such as herons and egrets are around, the American White Ibis prefers smaller prey ...". --Philcha (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

passive --> active done Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Y "Juveniles have lower foraging efficiency ... at the peripheral region of the group". Is this a partial defence against robbery by males? --Philcha (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

the author of the study noted some stealing of food by adults but stopped short of drawing firm conclusions and recommended further study. Did suggest were forced to feed in less favourable areas but stated ultimately unclear. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y "The origin of the species' sexual dimorphism is unclear as, to date, no differences between the sexes in feeding success rates or the foraging behavior have been observed, and as males are larger, they need more food than females" looks unrelated to anything else, and perhaps a partial contradiction of the item about males' stealing from unrelated juveniles and females. Don't the sources talk to each other? Would seeing who cites whom help to show developments in understanding of this species' behaviour? Any ideas? --Philcha (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

One has to go on what the sources say - this study looked at foraging behaviour to see if it could find anything which could explain the size difference (i.e.different success rates etc.). It couldn't. I can't speculate on what is not there. I don't recall seeing it gelled with other data. sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Philcha (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Status

• Y This mini-lead needs prose improvement, e.g. "The American White Ibis is classed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List, as this bird has a large population ...." --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

3 "sentences" separated by semi-colons - "The American White Ibis is classed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List; the population consists of 150,000 mature adults, and is stable, although some populations have unknown trends; in North America there has been an almost six-fold increase in the last four decades." I'd make "The American White Ibis ... Least Concern on the IUCN Red List" 1 sentence. For the rest, I think are at least apparent inconsistencies in the text. BirdLife International includes a few IMO crucial works: "The overall population trend is stable"; and "these surveys cover less than 50% of the species's range in North America". IMO the options are: remove the item about the increase in North America; or say that this static is based on surveys that cover less that 50% of the NA range. --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

agreed. done and done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Human impact

• Y How about e.g. "In the Everglades ecosystem, human pollution has led to increased concentrations of methylmercury, a globally distributed neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor, which has reduced the American White Ibis' behavior, including its foraging efficiency. Recent research has found that increased exposure to methylmercury reduces juveniles' foraging efficiency.".
• Y "Moreover, consumption of methylmercury in the diet also affects the hormone levels within the male bird, ... approached by fewer females during the mating season":
  • Do you think "Moreover, consumption of methylmercury in the diet also affects the hormone levels within the male bird, ... approached by fewer females during the mating season" should be in the next para, which describes gay males. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Either way (oops!), please similarly copyedit for "Moreover, consumption of methylmercury in the diet also affects the hormone levels within the male bird, ... approached by fewer females during the mating season." --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Y I'm sorry, the rest of the section also needs a copyedit. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

copyedited whole bit now and incorporated ideas above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In culture

• Y I've copyedited, what you you thnk of the result? --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

looks ok Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• What does "sponsored an ibis entry in the college's homecoming celebration" mean - a real bird, a copy of the official mascot, or what? --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure - it is capitalised in the source so I guess it must be the mascot Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y Is "John Stormont was the first person to be Sebastian Hall's back in 1958" relevant? --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

probably not - removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Y After belatedly reading the source Sebastian the Ibis (doh!) I find that only the title says "Sebastian the Ibis" and at best would support that "Sebastian the Ibis" was used in 1 celebration. After Googling for ibis mascot miami I eventually that University of Miami Mascot in Hot Water After Discovery of Crustacean Ring from Convicted Felon clearly says Sebastian the Ibis is the current mascot, and IMO is an RS ("A Chicago Tribune website"). IMO the sleazy context is not a problem for you and me (Aussie and Brit)! --Philcha (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that one is a bit bloggy -will forego it and use the following one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y Google for "Eudocimus albus" mascot miami just got me The tale of the ibis, which says the mascot is Eudocimus albus, leaving no doubt. The source is controlled by University of Miami - yippee! --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead links and DAB pages

I'll check with User:Dispenser/Checklinks and the DAB checker when the content is stable. --Philcha (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

think I got all the dablinks Casliber (talk · contribs)

• Checklinks looks OK all to "Human impact". To check "In culture" when agreed. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dab links looks OK all to "Human impact". To check "In culture" when agreed. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Images

Y Images OK. --Philcha (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• Y Taxobox fine. --Philcha (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Y "Being sexually dimorphic, males are larger than females" looks like a explanation, but I doubt that - in some species the females are larger (eggs need space), T rex females were apparently large, and female spider are larger. --Philcha (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just dropped the technical term as I don't think it adds much here. rejigged a little. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. -Philcha (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y "The non-breeding range extends further inland ..." looks clumsy after the previous sentence - how about e.g. "Outside the breeding period, the range extends further inland ...". --Philcha (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

done, and see below Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y "Outside the breeding season, the American White Ibis is found in a variety of wetland habitats, ..." has no contrasting point about breeding environs. --Philcha (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

dropped as more complicated than previously thought (see body of text as discussed above), slotted breeding colonies bit into breeding range. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Y I'd make "Predominantly monogamous, the American White Ibis pairs up ... to lower reproduction rates" a separate para, as it's about mating rather than diet. --Philcha (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, but the last bit goes into enviro pollution, which isn't strictly diet or breeding either...? I do see where you're coming from but two paras covers alot of diverse material. Will muse on this Okay, actually pollution bit impacts on breeding behaviour so does slot in if paras split - para 2 now split. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please also see "In culture". --Philcha (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from User:Stemonitis

A few things, mostly nitpicking, but some of more importance:

• "It is the first known case of adult multiple nest-attending breeding behavior that has documented for the species." Apart from the grammatical problems, it is unclear to me if this is noteworthy. Has there been one report for this species, or is this the only species to do something?

It is not unique, but is an unusual behaviour among bird species, so is notable. I trimmed it and adjoined it to previous setence with an mdash. I like mdashes Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Like other species of ibis, the White Ibis flies with neck and legs outstretched, often in long, loose lines or 'V' formations. The reason is unclear but may be because aerodynamic efficiency is increased." could probably be made more concise: "Like other species of ibis, the White Ibis flies with neck and legs outstretched, often in long, loose lines or 'V' formations, which may improve the birds' aerodynamic efficiency."

Yeah, I'll go with that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• "For many bird species which have sexually dimorphic nestlings, it is usually the larger sized male nestling that often experience higher mortality as a result of the parents’ inability to meet its greater nutritional needs." The verb agreement are wrong here, and either "usually" or "often" is probably superfluous.

yup, reworded (how'd I miss that?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• In the mixed-species flocks paragraph, the White Ibis is said to be looking for crabs, whereas up until that point, it had been mostly eating crayfish. Isn't this a contradiction? They are quite different animals.

ah, I added 'there' to clarify - the crab bit of diet is in the flooded fields with the glossy ibis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• "It is unclear whether the fish are more easily caught if overcrowded, or whether sheer numbers of fish mean that ibises are catching them instead of crayfish statistically". Can ibises catch fish statistically?

was trying to think of another adverb to go here, but I think "sheer numbers gives the gist of the meaning without a need for an adverb (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• "It would wading slowly through shallow water and sticking its long, downcurved bill into the substrate". More grammar issues.

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• "a 590% increase" - perhaps better worded as "a nearly six-fold increase"?

ok. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• doi:10.2307/4084896, doi:10.2307/4087667, doi:10.2307/4513062 and doi:10.2307/4090363 are missing the JSTOR parameter, and should probably use {{cite jstor}} or direct (not template-based) referencing. Many of the references, especially Nature and the Royal Society publications also have PMIDs, and sometimes Bibcodes or PMCIDs, which could/should be added.

I have gone through so that every reference has at least one online indexing link, whether it be doi or jstor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• The following papers are missing the full page ranges, and there is no need to include the ISSN for this one journal only:
  • doi:10.1675/1524-4695(2007)030[0150:MNBIAA2.0.CO;2]
  • doi:10.1675/1524-4695(2008)31[298:SDFTGE2.0.CO;2]
  • doi:10.1675/1524-4695(2005)28[531:IPIJWI2.0.CO;2]

Yeah, I noticed that is a glitch with cite doi, an otherwise very useful template....fixed x 3 Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

--Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• This review's been open nearly three months. Surely we're just about done with this? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Wizardman, the delay is on my side (reviewer) - I was doing 3 GA reviews when reviews 2 of "my" nominations appearence at the same time. At at the end of Aug I moved house. The situation is returning to normal, and tomorrow (14 September) I will have the time and energy to resume work on this review. --Philcha (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm back ;-) Commentents are in the usual parts of the review. --Philcha (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I think I've got everything now (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a GA!

Casliber, many thanks for the all work you've done to improve this article. --Philcha (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(audible sigh of relief) - thanks for the thorough review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)