Talk:Long-tailed widowbird

Behavioral Ecology on Long-Tailed Widowbird

The Wikipedia entry for the Long-tailed Widowbird leaves much to be desired. The article merely mentions the species is a member of the Ploceidae family and in which countries it might be found. No other information is given in the text portion of the article. The information bar on the right of the page includes a photo of a male Long-tailed Widowbird (though the sex of the animal, despite being apparent by the male’s distinct tail, is not mentioned), its current conservation status (least concern), and known scientific classifications. The History tab indicates little editing of page, and the Talk tab merely indicates that the article is a stub, of undetermined importance, and part of the Wikiproject Birds. No mention is made of the distinct mating practices of the species, including the female choice of males with long tails, nor is there any mention of the lack of parental input by males. As expected with such a sub, there is only a single citation in the article. Thus, this page is in dire need of editing and expansion.

-cobiorower — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobiorower (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing and Additions

I have added a great deal of information to the article to expand on both the bilogy of the species as well as our current understanding of the sexual selection that takes place within Long-tailed Widowbird mating.

--Cobiorower (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)cobiorower

Peer Review

Cobiorower, good job with the additions you made to the article! I only made a few grammatical/ wording corrections. I also corrected a few run-on or fragmented sentences for better flow. Great coverage of Andersson's experiment. Ihyuan (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I added some hyperlinks. I italicized Eleusine jaegeri since it is a Latin name. I was not sure if The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex is supposed to be underlined or italicized. I also changed “remove” to “removed”. Zhangt2413 (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Eamon, great job! I was thinking you could just add a morphology section to this article, instead of describing the bird to such great detail in the introduction. If you include more detail, it could definitely just be its own section. I also felt like the last sentence of the introduction didn't seem necessary for Wikipedia, so I deleted it. On that note, I also felt that the first two paragraphs under Sexual Selection were a little too heavy on Charles Darwin. I understand the significance of his contributions, but I didn't feel this was appropriate for wikipedia standards for an article specifically on a bird. I also linked a lot of things, and changed a few typos, and changed the question under The Male's Tail and Epaulet. That also didn't seem appropriate for a wikipedia article. Also another question, why can't they fly in wet weather? Overall, great job. Alexliu818 (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Further editing

I have added a morphology section to the article and several photos.

--Cobiorower (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)cobiorower

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Long-tailed Widowbird/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Samara levine (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• First, the overview at the top provided a strong summary of the article.

thanks!

• In the Taxonomy section, it would be helpful if you created some links to the genus Euplectes page. Additionally, maybe you could add page links to some of the other birds that are in the same family.

Done

• In the location and environment section, it is a bit confusing because you say there are three isolated populations, but you name four different locations. Although you speak geographically where they are found, it would be helpful if you additionally included what kind of environments they lived in (i.e. grassland, forest, etc.)

That is covered under habitat, so I re-ordered the sections to flow easier.

• The morphology section is very thorough. Great job! Perhaps include another photograph (instead of the drawing) of the male birds.

I included a male photo a little bit latter in the article

• Habitat and Diet section was also very thorough!

Thanks

• Great job on the Behavior section!

Thanks

• This article needs sections on the birds' status and on its relationship with humans.

They really don't have a particular relationship with humans, but I added a conservation status section.

• Overall, looks great! I would say ready for good article status once you add those sections! Samara levine (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

• There are a few places where there are still "citation needed" tags. If you could address those, that'd be great! Samara levine (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

done

A few additional comments from MeegsC (talk · contribs)

• Be sure to convert all metric measurements to imperial as well; the {{convert}} is a really handy resource. Check the Red-throated Loon article, if you want an example of it being used.

done

Still a few: egg size, length of tail in "Sexual selection" section, km in "Conservation" section

Sorry about that, now done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobiorower (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

*Don't use symbols like ">" or "<" in formal writing. Change all of them to words.

done

*Be sure to standardize your capitalization of the bird's name. Per WP:MOS, it's Long-tailed Widowbird. There are a number of places in the article where it's capitalized differently.

done

• All scientific names (like those of the listed plants) should be italicized.

done

Species look good. Orders (such as Hemiptera) should not be italicized. Only species and genera...

done

• Combine very short paragraphs. No single sentence paragraphs, please!

done

Still one in the Morphology section

done

• All book references should have ISBN numbers, and the page number on which the cited fact is found should be indicated. Readers need to be able to verify your information for themselves.

This will take some time for me to track down the books again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobiorower (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy

*This bird wasn't first identified by Pieter Boddaert, it was first described by him. And a wikilink to his article would be appropriate.

done

• Are there any known subspecies? If so, what are they called, and how are they differentiated?

done

• What are its closest relatives?

done

• What does its scientific name mean?

cannot find

• Is it part of a superspecies? Or has it ever been considered conspecific with another species? If so, these should be mentioned.

has been considered a superspecies, no mention of being conspecific

MeegsC (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Some comments from Atrian (talk · contribs)

• a range map would help. Even though they are isolated populations a map would show some context for the distance between them.

range map added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danoue92 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• in sex selection, I find it odd that you report the methods of a scientific study. I would rather just see the results of the study summarized.

I cleaned up the sex selection section and added a subsection for the Andersson experiment, since it was an important experiment that helped corroborate Darwin's theories. However, I didn't want to exclude the methods of the study because I felt like these were key to understanding the significance of the experiment. Instead, I divided the section into methods and results paragraphs so the section is easier to read.--Blubird25 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• In the conservation section the phrase "thresholds for Vulnerable" is used three times. This is poorly worded and should be addressed. Atrian (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This section has been edited for better wording JSDavis2 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Final comments

The nominator, reviewer, and primary author (Cobiorower) were all part of a fall-semester course, and none have edited on Wikipedia since December 20, over a month ago. As the new semester began a week ago, it's clear that this article and nomination has been abandoned. Consequently, this article cannot be listed at the time. If someone wishes to work on the previously noted issues—none of the ones noted by Atrian have been addressed, and it's not clear how many are left over from the earlier comments—they are welcome to renominate the article after they've finished. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)