Talk:Blue-and-black tanager/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Lede

• "...species of bird in the tanager family Thraupidae" Just say "...in the family Thraupidae", since we already know we're talking about tanagers.

Actually, "tanager family" is to highlight that the family Thraupidae contains tanagers, which would not be obvious to someone unused to bird taxonomy.

• "in the Andes of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela". Later on, you give the same list of countries, but in a different order. Maybe I'm being OCD, but I found that jarring as I compared to two lists to see if they were actually the same. I'd put them both in the same order.

Done.

• "It has the highest distribution", maybe more explicit, "It has the highest altitude distribution"? If you way you've got it is standard usage in bird articles, then it's fine.

I think highest distribution is clear enough.

I'm going to push back on that. When I read "highest distribution", I think more in the statistical sense, i.e. "has the most birds". So I think you really need to make it clear that "highest" is talking about altitude, not numbers.

• "mostly blue with black masks, wings, and tails", everybody knows what wings and tails are, but if there's some good article to link "masks" to which describe what that means, please do so.

Couldn't find a page which mask could be linked to, hasn't been created yet.

• "very slight sexual dimorphism", I'd get rid of "very".

Done.

• "especially with Iridosornis or Anisognathus species.", I think "especially Iridosornis and Anisognathus" works better and is less verbose.

Done.

• "The blue-and-black tanager is listed as being of least concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ..." For the lede, I would stop here. You can go into more detail about the Red List, etc, in the body.

The lead isn't very long as it is, so I think having some information about its conservation status and threats affecting it in the lead is worth it.

Infobox

If possible, avoid references in infoboxes per WP:INFOBOXCITE, so move the citation for Least Concern to where it's mentioned in the main body.

Removed.

Taxonomy and systematics

• "(Euphone?)" It's almost impossible to see that ? is linked. Maybe link the entire "Euphone?" Or maybe there's some word that can be used instead of just the question mark? As above, if this is standard usage in bird articles, it's fine the way it is.

Linked all of "(Euphone?)".

Subspecies

• MOS:EMBED discourages lists such as you've got here. I don't think what you've got is really a problem, but consider if there's a way to present this information as running prose.

Presenting subspecies as a list is standard usage in bird (and more generally most taxon) articles, since there isn't really a way to present subspecies-specific information (like distribution and plumage differences) in an easy to read way in running prose (although some articles do use running prose for the subspecies section, especially if there's only two subspecies).

• La Libertad lists a bunch of possible places this could be. Find the correct one and link directly to it.

Done.

• If there's a good article to link "nape" to, do so.

Done.

Description

• "The blue-and-black tanager is an average-sized species for its genus, with an average length of 13 cm (5.1 in) and an average mass of 18 g (0.63 oz)." Are there some synonyms you can use to avoid the 3x repetition of "average"? Maybe something like, "... for its genus, typically 13cm long and weighing 18g"?

Reworded.

• "very slight sexual dimorphism", as above, you don't need "very".

Done.

Vocalizations

• I assume terms like "tsit", "swit", etc, are standard bird-call nomenclature? If so, is there article you can link to which describes what those mean?

Those are how the calls are described in the source, and there isn't an article for this since these are mostly just onomatopoeic imitations of the call.

Distribution and habitat

• Link "canopy". ... Oh, I see you link it later. As noted above, link the first time a term is used.

Changed link to first usage.

Behavior and ecology

• " It found more often with...". I think you're missing a word. "It IS found", I guess?

Done.

Overall

• You've got many places where you link the same term multiple times. For example, I see three links for "least concern". Please review the entire text and just link the first time a term is used.

The three links for least concern are in the lead, infobox, and body. The infobox link is auto generated, and articles are allowed to have separate links to the same article in the lead and body. The only other duplink I can see is for Boissonneau, where the second link is as an authority for a subspecies, which is also standard usage in bird articles (see here for an example).

As far as the 6 main GAN criteria listed at WP:GACR, I don't see any issues other than those noted above.

This is a really nice article, and well written. Thanks for working on it! -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, thanks for the review, I've addressed all your comments. AryKun (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about your use of "highest" (see my note above), so please address that.

Tweaked the wording.

I've also uploaded two new versions of your images where I've improved the exposure. I think they look better, but I'm always hesitant to make this kind of adjustment on scientific images because subtle changes of color might be significant. Consider using them if you think they're acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the second image, but kept the infobox image the same because I think the modified version changes the blue too much, as well as making it blown out.

• RoySmith, dealt with your remaining concerns. AryKun (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. I'll mark this as passing the review. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)