Talk:Russet sparrow

Pre-GA comments

I'll try and dig up the HBW this weekend. The main comment from a quick glance is organisational. In the section description, I'd break it into two paragraphs, and have on section on general morphology and a second on plumage and moults. I'll take a closer look later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

However do you do that with the description? (I've never seen that in an article.) I don't entirely feel up to it; maybe I'll come up with a different organisation. I also want to focus on House Sparrow. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done it. Once I expand the lead, add more alt texts, and add info from some papers on moult, I'll nominate this for GA. All the same, if you or anybody with the HBW or Ripley Guide could check if these works have anything not mentioned in here, that would be ensure its completeness. I suppose the one thing I'd like to know is if this could become an FA without substantially more text. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Golden White-eye is currently progressing nicely through FAC and isn't much longer; some species just don't have as much info, but if you use everything there is that isn't a problem. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read this paper? It has info on the fledging time and nestling care of birds in Japan. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. There don't seem to be that many papers on this species (I only found one (the one on breeding season feeding with atrocious English—"the Caterpillar, as we have seen is the most important food for Russet Sparrow"—) using a Google Scholar search for "Passer rutilans", plus the woodpecker paper that mentions it briefly). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The paper wasn't of as much use I expected, since it uses a strange sort of jargon I've never seen before, and is quite focused on the issue of nestling weight. Nothing clear about incubation periods etc., but I've added a bit of information. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russet Sparrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

This article is looking pretty good. I have some initial comments before I go to work.

•  DoneInconsistency in listing multiple authors for references. Inmost cases the last name is treated the same as others, (Last name, First) but in ref 12 only first follows that format, the rest are First name last name, etc).

Dealt with.

By the way, I will use Harvard citations for consistency if you only give the particular page in the HBW, rather than the contribution page numbers. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

•  DoneInconsistency in units. 14 to 15 centimetres (5.5 to 5.9 in) versus 6.7 to 7.7 centimetres (2.6–3.0 in)

Both Summers-Smith and Clement give detailed figures for most measurements, but only this for length.

You misunderstand me. You use 5.5 to 5.9 and 2.6–3.0. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed this with use of the "to(-)" parameter in the convert template. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

•  DoneIt also occurs in towns where its relatives are not present. - given the lead is so short, could you spell out what relatives these are?

Done

• Again the lead is very short, you could say a little more about breeding - just the bare bones details (it is monogamous, it is seasonal, both parents do this, etc etc etc.

The information available is rather random

•  DoneThe lead should preferably follow the order of the article, which this lead does not.

I'll see what I can do, but the current arrangement seems more readable. Perhaps doing this will make it reach a greater length

Description

•  DoneI'm glad you've reorganised the section per my pre-GA suggestion. The only problem left there is the iris colour, which seems a little out of place where it is. Perhaps you could also add bill and leg colour there?

I don't really know where to put it. (the iris, I mean) —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Actually, I have done this for you now and cited it. Hope it is okay. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I knew I forgot something there. Same in Clement.

•  DonePretty nit-picky, but you use bill and beak. They are the same thing, but bill is more usual for passerines, isn't it?

I only changed this when linking beak; should I use a piped link?

• Question about the bibs - any evidence that they vary by status/age class, the way they do in other sparrows?

Nothing mentioned in sources. In the House Sparrow the situation is really more complicated than that.

•  DoneThe Russet Sparrow's basic call is a cheep or chilp, similar to that of other sparrows, but monosyllabic and soft - The calls of all the others in the genus/family are multisyllabic? This has the softest call of any sparrow? If not, a slight re-word may be needed.

The House Sparrow's call is usually disyllabic. I'll alter this.

•  DoneSummers-Smith describes the multi-note song of this species as "the most musical calls of any of the sparrows". Worth a mention?

Mentioned already, with a quote ("sweetest and most musical") from Summers-Smith 1988.

Taxanomy

• Any idea who moved it to Passer or when? Not vital but it could validly be added here.

No idea.

Specifically, no idea who combined rutilans —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

•  DoneSummer-Smith has suggested that the species evolved (like the other black-bibbed sparrow species in Eurasia) in isolated ice-free refugia during the glacial periods 25,000 to 15,000 years ago, in this case the Yangtze valley. The details are sparce in my HBW, do you have anything more in your books? It sounds worthy of inclusion in this section.

Oh yes, I'll add that. Didn't notice it since it is in the conclusion of The Sparrows. No details on this species not in the HBW, I expect, but more perspective on the sparrows in general.

•  DoneMore of a comment, but wouldn't differences in subspecies appearance be better in description (where mention of differences in size is made?

I'll try and put some in both. Good catch. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• intensior, ... is found in southwest China and parts of India, Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam and t is distributed through southern China and Taiwan, and the mountain parts of Burma, southern Northeast India, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, where it is mostly resident. The Russet Sparrow also occurs as a winter visitor in southern Japan and the further south of China - but HBW has the range as NE India, SC and S China, N Myanmar to N Laos, with a mention in the movements that "a general withdraw from higher latitudes to areas south of breeding range, including N Thailand". It seems from the HBW and the map that the birds in Thailand are non-breeding migrants, how does that jive with your book?

No detailed information on winter range was available for Summers-Smith, but he included a tiny corner of Thailand on the intensior breeding range map. I don't like these lists of countries at all, but I don't see much to improve.

I will try and amend it to make it clear that the species moves further south than its breeding range in Thailand while not suggesting that it doesn't breed at all. Sound good?

•  DoneIn Hokkaidō, the Russet Sparrow finds a greater food supply for its young in more isolated forests, - what is an isolated forest? Isolated from humans or isolated from other forests?

I must say I don't know: all it says is "isolated forests", so I think I'll just remove this. I think it actually means wilder forests. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Isolated from humans: some "km from the farm" —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do some more reviewing later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made some replies. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Easy pass. Well done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Onwards to FA

I would get a second person to look at this for the writing and clarity aspects. The lead needs a bit of expansion, and there are some very minor points left from the GA review. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you can check in the HBW for information on breeding (incubation period, etc)? Expansion of the lead seems the priority. The other things not marked with {{done}} are mostly things not recorded for this species, and there is also the Thailand issue. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

HBW has less information that what you have found. The Thailand issue is the only real outstanding issue, but it is fairly minor. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to provide a review of this article pre-FAC. Ucucha 02:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ucucha.

There were several suggested sources posted as hidden comments next to the reference header, and I've found most, including that The Condor paper on global warming, but I can't find "FieldMusNatHistZoolSer18:343" Most papers noted like that are available online. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here, perhaps. Ucucha 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dysmorodrepanis can help you track down the reference. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, this one should be it. P. rutilans is at page 377: [1]. Ucucha 18:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

After all this bother, it turns out to be of no use: nothing not in Summers-Smith, and similar to several other sources provided by Shyamal. A search for "Passer rutilans" in the Biodiversity Heritage Library has turned up some interesting things, especially on that Victorian obsession, egg-collecting. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thailand

Winter visitor only to northern Thailand according to Robson, Craig (2004). A Field Guide to the Birds of Thailand. New Holland Press. p. 125. ISBN 1843309211. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) and Lekagul, Boonsong (1991). A Guide to the Birds of Thailand. Saha Karn Baet. p. 386. ISBN 9748567362. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked a bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For FA, I would delink common countries eg India, China, and common words like "wing" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no dabs or dead links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright: I'll add your suggested Thailand information. I've already checked for dabs and dead links; the Vaurie paper link is a redirect, but the page says to cite that url. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

host of common cuckoo Cuculus canorus bakeri if you think it's worth adding Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

With this bird probably anything is worth adding. Can you add it, since I don't know how to cite it? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A few comments

• "It has a thick bill suited to eating seeds, which is yellowish or pale grey, with a dusky tip on non-breeding adults and juveniles, and black or blackish on breeding birds." Spot the misplaced modifier!

Wonder how that got there. Probably when I made alterations during the GA review.

• The sentence about flight, coming as it does in the midst of measurements and clinal variations, seems misplaced.

I've moved it, but I'm not really satisfied with the arrangement of non-plumage description either.

• You might consider using the modifier |abbr=on for your convert templates; this means the template won't spell out centimetres (for example) every single time you use it. (Just learned about this one myself...)

Done.

• Birds of the subspecies rutilans have the cheeks and the sides of their neck off-white..." Why not "Birds of the subspecies rutilans are off-white on their cheeks and the sides of their necks..."

Added.

• Commas are missing in a number of places: for example, "In the Himalayas the Russet Sparrow breeds from..." and "In most of its range the Russet Sparrow breeds ..."

MeegsC | Talk 18:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, in the distribution section. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

As promised, I've given a read over the article:

• "The Russet Sparrow prefers higher altitudes in the southern part of its range, but in the north it breeds." - why the "but"?

This seems to fit best with the thing on latitude.

What is the contrast between the first and second part of the sentence? "But" implies that there is one; I can't see it. Ucucha 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Typo: "by the sea" was left out. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• rufous - it's generally better to avoid words like this; "reddish" would mean the same, wouldn't it?

Using reddish for most references and a linked rufous for certain ones would seem best.

Nothing to remove, as all mentions pertain to back colour. The word is well known enough, and is linked. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• supercilium - link and/or explain

Should be linked, for certain.

• Could the description include features other than external anatomy?

Nothing except characterisations of sparrows in general to be found. Books on birds tend to ignore this, you know.

Second check in some Victorian books I thought might contain this found nothing. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. Thanks for the further check. Ucucha 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• "In Sakhalin, moult occurs in August and September, between the breeding season and the autumn migration." - no data from anywhere else?

Nothing except some extremely puzzling observations made in the 1880s I have yet to understand.

I'll add those before sending this to FAC. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• "The Russet Sparrow seems to have separated from the other Palearctic black-bibbed sparrows about 25,000 to 15,000 years ago, during the last glacial period." - you cite this to something from 1988, but would this still be consistent with the latest phylogenetic results? It would imply that five or so other species diverged over the last few thousand years.

This is also in the Handbook of the Birds of the World, published last year; what should be done?

We probably should include it when the sources say it; I consider it odd though.

• "flying insects caught by flycatching" - does "flycatching" have any meaning beyond "catching flying insects"? If so, it should be explained or linked.

catching them in the air will replace this.

"aerial pursuit" is even more of an improvement. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps move conservation status into "Relationship with humans"?

I've always preferred placing this in "distribution and habitat" for many birds—as I've just altered it it seems best.

Ucucha 18:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is rufous really that unusual a word? I think it is fine. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. I tend to avoid it but may be too picky.

As noted, I think I'll replace some but not all usages

Further comments:

• Distribution map would be nice

Distribution map would be extremely hard to create.

Why?

Highly complex distribution. I'm only just figuring out how to make things like this, and I haven't created any for Wikipedia yet. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help; I have made some relatively complex maps such as File:Oryzomys distribution.png. Ucucha 18:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where except the HBW one would find a map. Do you think you could?

• The Zoological Record list a number of other publications on the species. A few might add interesting information, such as these:
  • Title: Breeding biology of the russet sparrow Passer rutilans in different habitats. Author(s): Chae, Hee-Young Source: Korean Journal of Ornithology Volume: 4 Issue: 1 Page(s): 47-54 Published: December 1997

Included.

Seems to be a different article (feeding instead of breeding biology and journal of ecology instead of ornithology). Ucucha 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Chae's studies contain very little of importance. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Title: Effects of inclement weather conditions on laying interruption and clutch size of the russet sparrow Passer rutilans. Author(s): Chae, Hee-Young Source: Strix Volume: 16 Page(s): 17-23 Published: 1998

(ec) In Japanese. Not to be found online, but a similar paper's English summary (I searched some Japanese journal publisher for "Passer rutilans") contained nothing of value; and a paper on parasites, also difficult to understand because of the poor English and a liitle dubious, contained a statement something like "in dirty wet nests corpse were found". I cited it anyhow, but only on parasites recorded. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Title: Variations in fledging body weight and wing length of russet sparrow Passer rutilans in two different habitats. Author(s): Chae, Hee-Young Source: Japanese Journal of Ornithology Volume: 45 Issue: 4 Page(s): 215-225 Published: February 1997

Cited.

Right, sorry for missing it.

• • Title: Three passerine birds bred in the nests of black kites. Author(s): Takagi, Masaoki; Takahashi, Mitsuhiko Source: Strix Volume: 15 Page(s): 127-129 Published: 1997

(ec) I'll add this, but it is in Japanese, with a very brief English summary. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Title: Attracting beneficial birds for the biological control of Dendrolimus punctatus tehchangensis (Lep.: Lasiocampidae). Author(s): Wang, Y.; Liao, Y. Source: Chinese Journal of Biological Control Volume: 6 Issue: 1 Page(s): 25-26 Published: 1990

I'll look into the remainder.

• Most others seem to be uninteresting bird lists but you might want to have another look.

(ec) I've done that with Shyamal's recommended sources and the Biodiversity Heritage Libraries; I also searched several papers and exhausted the Google Scholar results. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the article seems very thorough to me and it should do well at FAC. Good work! Ucucha 19:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made replies, and will work on the article further. I'll lok through a number of references again, add the things on moult, brood parasitism and so on. Is the lead long enough? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead is good. It's missing information from the last section, but that is very brief and doesn't seem to contain much that would be essential to the lead.

One more thing: Why do you include the ranks between Passeriformes and Passeridae in the taxobox? Template:Taxobox generally discourages including such minor taxa, and they don't seem especially important to this species. Ucucha 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dysmorodrepanis or somebody added them while they were at DYK. I think some may matter. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed two, but not Passeri—these are the "songbirds"—. Is this article ready for FAC then? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Passeri is the most significant of the three, so that is justifiable. As for FAC, have you looked into the Dendrolimus control paper? I still think a distribution map would add to the article; perhaps Sabine's Sunbird can help there? Neither should hold the article up much, and you can nominate it right away if you prefer. Ucucha 20:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. I have looked into the Dendrolimus paper. Online, it seems to be at two Chinese websites that take hours to load indexes in Chinese (and the paper may be in Chinese, or poor English). I may be able to borrow a print copy, but it will take months. As for the map, it seems only the HBW has an up-to-date map, so it will presumably have to wait until Sabine's Sunbird creates one, or I figure out how to make intricate maps, see and photocopy the HBW, and make a map—probably a matter of months either way. Therefore I'll nominate the article now. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you already added some information that would presumably be in this paper; that's enough for me. Ucucha 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Author and name

There is some doubts about name, authorship and date of this bird here.--Earwig (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the discussion at birdforum that brought me here. IOC have 1836 for the description by Temminck and that by Gould but give priority to Temminck. This seems doubtful. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russet sparrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328042819/http://www.chinesebirds.net/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=94 to http://www.chinesebirds.net/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=94

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)