# Talk:Cerulean warbler

warblers have funny names!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.107.131 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cerulean warbler. 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/20031203163112/http://www.birds.cornell.edu:80/cewap/ to http://birds.cornell.edu/cewap/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cerulean warbler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a look soonish, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Any cladogram to show? If you know of a published one, you can request the code at WP:treereq.
Unfortunately, position of the cerulean warbler (especially in relation to its closest relatives) is not especially well resolved. See [1],[2]. Its position, as well as those of its immediate relatives, are in flux and also the lowest-confidence part of the Setophaga phylogeny. Regardless, if it is suitable for reproduction, it can also be used. The genus is also pretty large. Sub31k (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it's worth showing, if not just to illustrate the instability, you can even show conflicting ones side by side, as in Seychelles parakeet. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. I will look into that! I suppose a clade of perhaps around 10 relatives is appropriate for such a template? Sub31k (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever best suits the situation. FunkMonk (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done Sub31k (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
You can add the photo of the female photo to the taxobox, as in for example lion, and use the space under description for some other interesting anatomical angle or feature.
 Done Special:Diff/1090923113. Sub31k (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
There is image sandwiching under "In art and culture", one image would have to be removed from the section, perhaps the Audubon image could be moved to conservation or something.
 Done by BloatedBun in Special:Diff/1090886838 Sub31k (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Might look better if you right align the nest image and left align the egg image, it is preferred that the subject of images "face" towards the text.
 Done by BloatedBun in Special:Diff/1090887277 Sub31k (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
There are some WP:duplinks that can be highlighted with this script:[3]
Section headers should no have citations, so not sure what's going on with "Status and conservation[44]".
 Done by BloatedBun in Special:Diff/1090886264. Not sure how that got in there in the first place. Sub31k (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
State the sexes of the birds shown in the other two photo's captions?
 Done Sub31k (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
"In 1811, the female was described as a separate species, Sylvia rara." By who?
 Done Sub31k (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
"In 1842, it was moved from Syvlia, which contained Old World warblers as well as the New World wood-warblers, into the new genus Dendroica" By who? New World wood-warblers could also be linked.
 Done Have had to redact some parts, as it is unclear whether the species existed within "Sylvicola", a name that had been pre-occupied by a genus of wood gnats. Sub31k (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
You should be consistent in whether you staten nationality and occupation of the people you mention, is inconsistent now.
 Done Sub31k (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
"In 2011, Dendroica was merged into Setophaga." By who, and on what grounds
 Done Sub31k (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
When and by who was it realised that Sylvia rara was the same species?
 Done Sub31k (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
"it was believed that Sylvia cærulea (unjustified emendation of cerulea) had been preoccupied by the blue-gray gnatcatcher" Add "the name" before Sylvia cærulea, if that's what you mean.
 Done Sub31k (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Link and present John Latham.
 Done
"Therefore, the name Sylvia rara, an 1811 description of the cerulean warbler by Alexander Wilson" A lot of repetition here in relation to what you mention earlier, you should rather just state this is the name that had been used for the female in 1811.
 Done Sub31k (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
"he cerulean warbler's close relatives include the Blackburnian warbler, blackpoll warbler, chestnust-sided warbler, Wilson's warbler and bay-breasted warbler." You should also state if these are in the same genus, and if the genus it was moved to contains many species
 Done Sub31k (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Could perhaps be useful to give the scientific names of other species mentioned in parenthesis after first occurrences of their names.
 Done by BloatedBun Sub31k (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Link Setophaga at first mention under taxonomy instead of where it is now in description.
 Done
"The culmen, or beak, measures 9.5–9.8 mm" The culmen is specifically the upper margin of the beak.
 Done
Hybridisations could probably be linked.
 Done
Move the sound below the photo in description, as this is also the order they are described in the adjacent text?
 Done
Why is this seemingly in UK English (centimetres, colour) when it's an American species? Not a huge deal, you could argue it has more connection with the US, per WP:Engvar.
I also see an instance of "colored", so it is currently inconsistent either way. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC
Oops! I had been writing in my Canadian English, but I see how American would be more appropriate. The inconsistency is probably down to my own sloppiness/accidentally missing an entry. Will get to fixing that. Sub31k (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done Sub31k (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Link riparian.
 Done
Link South America at first instead of second mention in article body.
 Done
You could abreviate centrimetres like you do with most other remeasurements.
 Done
"Jonathan Franzen" Present.
 Done
Present John James Audubon.
 Done
"The partnership created the Cerulean Warbler Bird Reserve" When
 Done
"prey consists of green lepidopteran larvae, though it also eats black larvae" This seems like a strange distinction to make, what significance do their colour have
 Done Removed that superfluous detail. Sub31k (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
"They stay with mixed-species flocks as they forage." With what species?
 Done
Link  gleaning  at first occurrence instead of where it is now.
 Done
Predators, parasites
 Done. Not a lot to be said here, as study into this topic for this species is hard to find or just lacking. Moved brood parasitism line from behaviour into new section. Sub31k (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
"such as attacls" Looks like a typo.
 Done
Link altricial
 Done
"making it tlikely" Typo
 Done
"consuming butterfly (lepidopteran) larvae" you should give this explanation earlier under feeding where you mention lepidopteran larvae.
 Done
You could link chipmunk.
 Done
"hardwood forests" You only use this term in the intro, should also be mentioned in the article body then, as the intro should have no unique info.
 Done
"It displays strong sexual dichromatism:" Likewise, this wording could be used in the article body
 Done
"Adult males have cerulean blue" This term could also be used in the article body, alongside "a deep blue".
 Done
", a pale stripe over the eye" Only seems stated in the intro.
 Done
Colour of the beak, eyes, legs?
 Done
Changes look good, seems the Engvar issue is the only remaining issue above, and shade coffee is currently duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the duplink has been eliminated, and  outstanding Can/UK spellings substituted for American ones. Tentatively, I am marking this as  Done. Sub31k (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
With that done, I'll now promote the article. Good work, and congratulations if this is your first GA! FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I have been trying to get the References segregator to work, in order to convert the article to list-defined references, as the way I've done it (inline ref definitions) is very messy. However, I can't seem to get the script to work. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could help with that - I'd absolutely rename refs to sensible titles, if only someone were able to run the script over. Thanks! Sub31k (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well done to this article. Can you improve the referencing on ref 52. Thanks. BloatedBun (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Could you please link the passage in the article, so I can find what needs to be done? Thanks! Sub31k (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think its necessary now since the GA reviewer thinks its fine. Congrats on your first GA thou. BloatedBun (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Eh, one could always stand to improve things. Cheers. Sub31k (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I meant the ref 50 that needs ref improvement. Anyway, if youre planning another bird article for GA, I'm happy to help you clean a bit like at this article. BloatedBun (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@BloatedBunI see that the Curious George depiction of this species might have been somewhat poorly sourced on my end. My reasoning for having those two is that the journal article makes it clear that the episode in question has relevance to the species ("children's television program" cites this Curious George episode), while the programming guide deepens the connection and provides the sourcing to explain the details of how the warbler is portrayed. If this is WP:SYNTH, let me know! Thank you. Sub31k (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ill leave it to GA reviewer. My only concern is the ref 51, the referencing could be improved. That's all. BloatedBun (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)