# Talk:Azure-hooded jay

This review is transcluded from Talk:Azure-hooded Jay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article; will probably take a couple of days. Sasata (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The article looks pretty good already. I did some copyediting and introduced some wikilinks I thought would be beneficial, feel free to revert back if I've introduced any errors, or if you disagree with them. I have some questions/comments before I pass the article: Sasata (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"The feathers of the crown are often moving swiftly, and it is believed that the condition of a mate can be determined by this movement." Could you elaborate on this a little bit? I'm having difficulties picturing what these swiftly moving feathers are doing (do you mean rustling?); what condition is thought to be determinable - the mate's general health, closeness to predators, etc.?
I wish I could- the original quote from the reference is "There tends to be a constant movement of the crown feathers that reveals the condition of the mate." Alas, it isn't mentioned in any of the other sources, and other than being mentioned in the Reproduction section, nothing really pops out. I'm posting this on the WP:Birds page to see if anyone there has an idea. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll trust you to clarify this in the article when/if you get it figured out :) Sasata (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems strange to me to give the dimensions of the twigs it uses to such accuracy; the implication is that it will discard those twigs that don't meet its exacting specifications for nest-building... is it really that intelligent :)  ? Also, that inches should be the singular inch, but I'm not sure how to do that in the convert template.
A paper I found on the species details the first two nests discovered. I merely replicated the numbers from the two nests studied. Should I make it more vague? And while I don't know how utterly specific the species is, the nests will generally be about the same. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed to specify initially described nest. I read the template page and it didn't suggest how to make it singular, so I'm taking that specific number off-template. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at the original source, and the dimensions were 2-3 mm (not 2.8), so I changed that. Also figured out how to specify the sig figs in the convert template, so the dimensions look more realistic now (i.e., they don't give the implied impression of precision that's not really there). For future reference, just pipe a numerical value at the end of the convert template for how many places after the decimal you want, i.e. {{convert|2.3|in|cm|2}} gives 2.3 inches (5.84 cm). Cool, eh? Also reworded the sentence so the plural inches wouldn't be a problem. Sasata (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Fibrils links to a definition that doesn't seem to fit here (1 nm in width?)
Delinked. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Two young are raised, does this mean two birds out of the 3 or 4 eggs laid, or two separate broods?
I didn't find evidence of double-clutching being linked to this species or any of its genus, and the original paper, which I found before the ADW reference, mentions at least two young in the nest. Therefore, I've eliminated the reference to two young per the more precise and recent source. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the lifespan known?
I do not believe so. I did look for it again but, despite some creative searching, couldn't find a reference to it. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you know about this paper published last month: Bonaccorso E. (2009). "Historical biogeography and speciation in the Neotropical highlands: Molecular phylogenetics of the jay genus Cyanolyca". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 50(3): 618–632. If you can't easily access the paper, I can add in a short blurb to the article, if you like.
I don't have any subscriptions and can only find the abstract. Could you either add the blurb or (if its possible) email me the paper and I'll put a blurb in? Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Blurb has been added. Sasata (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article. Your copyedit looks great; I'll start work on the above soon. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Article now meets GA criteria, so I will promote it. Thanks for another avian contribution! Sasata (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Prose is well-written; article complies with MOS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR): 
Well-referenced, sources reliable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Coverage is good enough; lifespan would be a good addition, but this information doesn't seem to be readily available.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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):
Image has appropriate free use license.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Thank you for reviewing the article. I'll update it when/if the sentence is figured out (and may remove if we can't). Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)