# Talk:White-browed nuthatch

This review is transcluded from Talk:White-browed nuthatch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 02:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a look soon. The article looks a bit empty, perhaps this photo[1], while not great, could be used to show a more "regular" pose also? FunkMonk (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done [2]
Some trees are WP:duplinked.
Perhaps this. [3]  Done
Also Pinus kesiya. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done
Any cladogram? Genetic studies?
Attempted, but might be having hard time to request cladogram as they need source on it, but couldn't find it. Im not sure either if there are mentions about genetic studies of this species. =L
Hey, dropping in here, this has a phylogeny that includes S. victoriae, so perhaps you could use this at Treereq. AryKun (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Also,  Done attempting to add the mention about genetic study of the species. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:D866:5948:5CA2:7626 (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Caption for range map?
 Done
"The Eurasian nuthatch was described in 1904 by the British ornithologist and Lieutenant-Colonel George Rippon,[3] and the holotype is deposited in the British Museum." State the scientific name here and what it refers to.
Fixed (should not be Eurasian),  Done? [4]
"Vaurie notes" Why present tense?
Reworded  Done
"Simon Harrap suggests" When? And why present?
Appears to be Vaurie.  Done
Link white-tailed nuthatch at first mention, and supercilium.
 Done
Link Sitta.
 Done
"In the division into subgenera of the genus Sitta, little used, the Eurasian nuthatch is placed" Proposed by who and when?
 Done
You only present some writers with nationality and occupation, should be consistent.
Im gonna assume this is about citation.
It's about how you present people in-text. For example "British ornithologist and Lieutenant-Colonel George Rippon", but you only give this level of detail to him. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I added some detail [5].
"The upperparts of the nuthatch" Good to spell out the full name of the species at first mention in a new section.
 Done
Size measurements are usually listed first under description.
 Done
You could convert units with conversion templates.
 Done
Some citations need authors, and the names are not formatted consistently, some in all caps, some with first names spelled out and some not, etc.
 Done Attempted fixing ref style on 3, 4 and 5, go take a look FunkMonk. Also, Happy New Year! 2001:4455:1A9:E100:65E0:38A5:3CB9:488 (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Same to you! And looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
"However, Vaurie points out" Also odd present tense.
Changed "points out" into "pointed out".
"of clades IX and X" These names are not presented, what do they refer to?
Added [6]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4455:1A9:E100:58ED:9A2:3A1A:9A5C (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if "fig" makes it more or less confusing, I think you could just say "clades" tithout the Roman numerals, which will mean little to the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, done removing.
"and white-browed nuthatch (S. victoriae)" No need to mention scientific name in parenthesis again.
 Done
"are not included in the study, but appears to be basal" Should be "appear" if plural.
 Done
Link the word subspecies.
 Done
"which were sister to another Himalayan species pair" Spell out and link sister species/taxon.
I removed it and now appears to be "which were sister to S. himalayensis."
Now that a genetic study appears to have been found, you can request a code cladogram at WP:treereq.
Requested yesterday
"The Victoria Nuthatch has" nuthatch should not be capitalised.
 Done
It should be stated under taxonomy what "victoriae" refers to.
I'm gonna assume this is the same problem above, perhaps this [7] should be fine?
Same problem, but what I'm asking is whether any of the sources gives an etymology of the name. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Attempted [8]
"endemic to Nat Ma Taung, also known as "Mount Victoria" State and link this in the article body as well.
Removed "Mount Victoria" and now mentions "Nat Ma Taung" only as it appears to be the current title name of the article, and done linking and stating that bird appears on it. I'm not sure if you're gonna recommend also to remove  on lead?
You now appear to use the names Nat Ma Taung and Mount Victoria inconsistency throughout the article. If one is the current name, use that, unless it's in a historical context, such as the meaning of the bird's name.
Removed "Mount Victoria" and now mentions "Nat Ma Taung" only as it appears to be the current title name of the article.
"eyebrows" This appears the supercilium mentioned earlier, s state this outright so the reader can make the connection.
 Done putting "s"
Link sexual dimorphism.
 Done
"No sexual dimorphism was noted, but the juveniles could be distinguished by the lighter orange-red" Why "but"? The latter part doesn't contradict the former part.
Replaced "but" into "and", should work perhaps?
Explain culmen, supercilium, and other technical terms ion parenthesis.
Attempted [9] [10]
Is the word "iris" supposed to be where it is now? FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
It was stated on book as "iris red-brown or dark-brown".
Eye colour?
Perhaps this? [11]
I mean the eye itself (iris)? FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Under the description of the species in the book, there were no mentions about its eyes (iris), only the eyestripe unfortunately at page 126 of Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers
"The Eurasian nuthatch can be confused with the white-tailed nuthatch (Sitta himalayensis)" Eurasian again, check throughout. You can search text in the article with ctrl f1 if you're on PC.
 Done replacing it
"but which is rare where S. victoriae lives" Why suddenly use the scientific name here?
 Done
"The central tail feathers of S. victoriae are light gray" Likewise, will confuse the reader, better to stick to the common name.
 Done
"e confused with the white-tailed nuthatch (Sitta himalayensis)" No need to state the scientific name again.
 Done
As a non-expert on biology, this is challenging. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:58ED:9A2:3A1A:9A5C (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Going well so far. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"The call cry" Aren't call and cry synonyms in this context? Or maybe say "cry call"? Also, call could be linked.
 Done
"verses in tuwi Verses of?
Reworded
"Very little data is known about the reproduction" I don't think the word "data" is necessary.
Removed
"four and ten meters high; the third was placed in the trunk of a Rhododendron arboreum, six meters high" Add unit conversions.
 Done
"unlike many other species of nuthatches are used to doing" Unlike what many other species usually do?
Removed, it was apparently never said at the source
"Very little data is known about the reproduction of the nuthatch" Spell out the bird's full name?
 Done
"Rhododendron arboreum, can be visited by the nuthatch, both for food and for nesting." I think the first comma is unnecessary.
Removed
"also known as "Mount Victoria"" Should also be stated in the article body.
Added it from the "Distribution and habitat section".
You still seem to use the name Mount Victoria randomly at the end of the article.
Removed now, thanks to the ctrl + f you introduced to me.
"the Victoria nuthatch is found only in Nat Ma Taung, and culminating at nearly 3,070 m (10,070 ft), but it was found 22 km (14 mi) further northwest in the spring of 1995 near Mindat at possibly lower densities" Seems to contradict itself? Can't only be found one place when it has also been found another place? Or do you mean currently?
Reworded.
In the above sentence, what does culminating and densities refer to?
Reworded and removed "at possibly lower densities" as it wasn't said at the source
You now seem to use the name Victoria nuthatch randomly in the text too, it should only be used once, where you mention it as an alternate name, to avoid confusion, and use the main name otherwise throughout.
Removed now, thanks to the ctrl + f you introduced to me.
"during the description of the species in 1904, George Rippon" Only need to mention his last name since you've already mentioned the full name earlier.
 Done
Epiphyte is duplinked.
Removed link.
"The number of the white-browed nuthatch mentioned in the literature is very fragmented:" Fragmented or inconsistent?
Replaced into "inconsistent"
Link endemic.
 Done
" at 2,000–2,500 m (6,600–8,200 ft) meters" Last "meters" is unneeded.
Removed
"The population, estimated at a few thousand individuals, is in decline." Isn't this repetition, since you already discussed its numbers by that point?
Removed
"the family of Sittidae" Of unneeded.
Removed
"measuring 11.5 cm in length" Convert.
 Done
"The Victoria nuthatch is endemic to Nat Ma Taung" As above, be consistent in referring to it buy a single name, unless when you are specifically listing alternative names.
Replaced.
I'm not sure what the current consensus on the name is, but you should be consistent in whether you refer to the country as Burma/Burmese or Myanmar/Myanmarese. I believe the latter is the current name.
"Burmese law", "Burmese ornithologist" and "endemic to western Burma". I think they are fine, changing it into "endemic to western burmese", "burma law", or "burma ornithologist" looks kinda odd.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, what I mean is you should only use one name for the country and its nationality. Either it's Myanmar or Burma, can't be both, and I believe Myanmar is the current name. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
FunkMonk I'm sorry also for the confusion, non-native english speaker here :D. Also, I've change burma now into Myanmar [12]. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:D491:33CD:C6AF:2C51 (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I and Jens aren't natives either, so we understand, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Article still has multiple issues. I would recommend the author to apply all the steps we discussed at Talk:Giant nuthatch/GA1 here as well, most importantly:
add the French translation template
double-check correctness of translation using [13]
double-check if terms are correctly used (e.g., I don't think that a "cry call" exists)
double-check if links lead to the terms discussed
Fix the references (Bibliography secion missing, so links are not working)
and so on. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I did several minor changes and reworded some a little bit, linked properly and changed the ref style of Harrap. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:AD8D:34EA:1D98:6F6A (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh yeah, didn't realise this was a translation, so I guess that can be tricky in regard to sources. If Jens Lallensack has more to add, I'll wait a bit before looking again. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think there are still some translation problems, such as 

kinships, that seems to be an anthropological term? Use relationships.
"Surprisingly, a deep split between three specimens" – A "specimen" is a single individual, you are talking about clades here?
underbelly – this is not a bird term but generally means "underside", so it makes no sense here because you already described the "belly"!
Minor things:

link technical terms at first mention, e.g. Interspecifc, undertail-coverts, and there should be no "-" in the latter
Sitta always in italics
I think this doesn't look ready yet. I would recommend that you double-check all the terms you used if their definition matches with what you want to say. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've double checked nearly everything except for taxonomy at that time. Although I didn't notice that there is still a word "kinship". The other issues do not belong to the French article and/or were translated by me, but the content was added by myself. Those were some grammatical mistakes. It's kind of unfortunate that I have tons of grammatical issues nowadays. Anyways, I've fixed your concerns now. If some other errors are found, it would be grammar issues right now. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:F8B2:C524:76E0:4801 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, changes look good to me. I was mostly concerned with translation errors were terms are translated incorrectly, because these are often not obvious and may even be misinformation. This is why I was urging you to double-check these. I now checked again, and now I can't find any more of those. If you added those terms by yourself, I would generally recommend to simply use the terms that are used by your source. Since I have nothing more to add, and give it to FunkMonk (and sorry for interrupting here). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
It's welcome, I would certainly have overlooked most of these issues. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Still seeing instances of "Burmese" instead of "Myanmarese" (not counting bird names).
Replaced
Persons named still need to consistently be presented with nationality and occupation, unless you want to remove this info from all instead.
Added their details only at their name being mentioned first.
"also known as Mount Victoria" Would help if this was stated already under taxonomy when this place is first mentioned.
Done
There still doesn't seem to be any explicit statement that the scientifif name refers to the mountain.
Sadly I couldnt find any sources that mention about its scientific name being refers from the mountain. I think nothing on this source here [14] mentions it. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:CD4E:7CD7:A66D:3F40 (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
"(Wood and Finn 1902)", " (Buturlin, 1916)", don't think you need to mention citations in-text too.
Removed
Ive finished with your minor concerns now, but I couldnt find any sources that mention about its scientific name being refered from the mountain. I ended up removing this [15] as they were not mention at the source that I cited and would be original research. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:CD4E:7CD7:A66D:3F40 (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this[16] bird name dictionary could be used, though it's a borderline case. What do you think, Jens Lallensack? FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see it specifically mentions Sitta, so should be fine to use. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
You mean that I will reinstate the texts that I removed, but with that source? Or something else. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:17C:EE40:566B:5D6D (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the source I linked explains the etymology. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, attempted [17]. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:17C:EE40:566B:5D6D (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I'm not sure how it relates to the rest of the sentence, though: "Rippon then spent several months on Nat Ma Taung in 1904, collecting a large number of specimens in response to Wood's initial findings, and the species is therefore called Sitta victoriae." I think a more "elegant" way could be to put it right after the paragraph that explains the former name of the place was Mount Victoria, and that's why the species has the name it has.
Perhaps this? [18] 2001:4455:1A9:E100:1039:C4D2:8092:F4BC (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that suffices, so I'll promote the article now. Good job, I actually thought one had to have a profile to nominate GAs. FunkMonk (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the time FunkMonk. hah! I also thought that too until I tried it with the Blue nuthatch as I wanted to promote them into GA after translating from French article, and it works. I'm also glad that someone likes it [19]. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:E5E5:3906:820:3691 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)