![]() | Scaly-breasted munia has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The article on the Spice Finch looks like a good start towards a decent article. It is missing a taxonomy section, as well as a culture or human relation section. The behavior section can be expanded upon and split into subgroups of mating, feeding, and survival. The article mentions that many experiments have been performed on the birds, including observing that the foraging birds may feed actively on the substrate or pick grain dropped on the ground and these strategies may be chosen according to the situation, which could be expanded upon. More specifically, the discussion of producers and scroungers could be incorporated into that section. The experiments of Kieron Mottley and Luc-Alain Giraldeau could be referenced in order to write about the predicted stable equilibrium frequency with producers and scroungers doing equally well. A model graph of how the situation appears could be included. The writing is clear and neutral. The article mentions that the bird is gregarious and doesn’t give evidence why. Looking at the Talk page, it only shows that wikiprojects that it is affiliated with. Looking at the history page, it was created in 2004 which is a lot earlier than the other articles I have looked at, but is not as high of quality as others that got started later. Once again the revisions show just a slow accumulation of minor revisions has led it to how it looks currently. Zhangt2413 ( talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, all. Good work on the article! It looks like a lot of text has been added for the behavior section. I added a few edits related to readability and formatting. I split the block of text on feeding behaviors into smaller sections to focus on the particular concepts or behaviors described. Also, where needed, I added hyperlinks to clarify scientific terms used. Good work! GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL ( talk) 02:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony, overall the article looks great! I reworded the Sociality section because the use of “sometimes” was a bit redundant. Additionally, I added a hyperlink to the communal roosting page. For Feeding-related behaviors, I added a hyperlink to Munia, but other than that it looks great! For group living tradeoffs, I changed the wording of some of the sentences to improve clarity. Overall, however, I thought this section was particularly strong. I really appreciated the way you drew on a lot of different studies to prove a really strong point. There were some minor grammatical adjustments I made to the Foraging: two models, specialized foraging sections, and evolutionary stable strategies and tactics sections. In the breeding section, I adjusted a misbehaving hyperlink. This article would benefit from additional information on taxonomy, its role in culture, and its conservation status. Samara levine ( talk) 23:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
For this article, I made some slight alterations to the writing style, editing for clarity proper grammar. I corrected some run-on sentences and added some missing words. Some sentences were improperly structured and difficult to read, so I corrected these. I also fixed some of the headings, and indicated some places where a citation might be necessary.
In regards to behavior, I was wondering what significance tail flicking has. If it is significant to their behavior, I would suggest more elaboration on the subject. While reading it over I just changed some grammar and altered a couple sentences to improve the flow. I would also suggest adding more information about the bird that isn't behavior. This could give the article greater relevance to the reader. Great article
Jeremy.winkler ( talk) 21:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Cobiorower ( talk) 01:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC) cobiorower
This is a great overall article. I feel that you cover the material pretty in-depth.
Nice job with the article! You clearly did a ton of research and discusses a lot of interesting Munia behavior. For my peer review I really did not do much--I made a couple of minor revisions and broke up some paragraphs into smaller sections to make them easier to read. If you want to continue with this article, I would suggest that you start expanding other aspects of the article outside of "Foraging". Katheefwah ( talk) 19:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't have much to fix since there were so many editors before me. I made some minor grammar changes. I think the main thing to focus on is that you have a lot of subsections, more than usual pages. It seems like you made a section for each paper that you cited. Instead, you could try finding related ideas and putting them under maybe 2-3 bigger headings. I think it would make the article less choppy and more cohesive. Overall, great job. Katims90 ( talk) 18:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sainsf ( talk · contribs) 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Whew, there is a backlog in the Biology and medicine part of GAN. I shall help here, anyway, I like bird articles! My comments:
Lead section has been expanded in a format loosely based on what you mention here. Let me know if you think this needs additional work.
Just added some relevant pictures across the page and a range map from Wikimedia Commons. Let me know if these look okay.
Taxonomy section was created. Let me know if this is sufficient.
Converted!
Caption fixed.
Taxonomy sub-section has been made listing the subspecies.
Lifespan added.
Point well taken- I think I have now changed all the instances of alternate name use.
Done!
Added templates to the altitudes and commas to the section. Let me know if you think more of the latter are needed.
Australian population in Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2009 and Hawaiian population from Moulton et al. 1992; these are now added in the text.
Got it, added it in.
Added in sources from Restall's "Munias and Mannikins" & Baptista et al. 1999
Restall & Baptista et al. were added into the section
Done!
So I've trimmed parts of the Foraging section, but as you mention it is much too long to stay within behavior & ecology. I moved it to its own section with edits removing many experimental details and such. I can keep trimming down, but many of the models and behaviors have heavy emphasis in the literature as a hallmark for the species. For now, I have left much of that information in the article.
Got it!
First breeding paragraph was split up and references were added in.
Applicable sources added in.
I've found some variable information, breeders appear to indicate rapid maturity while other sources have it taking longer in the wild because environmental factors shown by that laboratory study. I wasn't able to confirm all of the information in books/academic articles, so I am unsure on the sources but I think the information looks reliable. Let me know if I should keep digging.
Fixed.
IUCN information added to section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsavalia23 ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Captions have been changed, either to full sentence format or full-stops were taken out.
This is it for now. I await your replies. This article is nice, cheers! Sainsf <^> Talk all words 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think we are done here. In my view this article is now perfect for GA status. I promote it. Congrats!
Sainsf <^>
Talk all words
12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Scaly-breasted munia has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The article on the Spice Finch looks like a good start towards a decent article. It is missing a taxonomy section, as well as a culture or human relation section. The behavior section can be expanded upon and split into subgroups of mating, feeding, and survival. The article mentions that many experiments have been performed on the birds, including observing that the foraging birds may feed actively on the substrate or pick grain dropped on the ground and these strategies may be chosen according to the situation, which could be expanded upon. More specifically, the discussion of producers and scroungers could be incorporated into that section. The experiments of Kieron Mottley and Luc-Alain Giraldeau could be referenced in order to write about the predicted stable equilibrium frequency with producers and scroungers doing equally well. A model graph of how the situation appears could be included. The writing is clear and neutral. The article mentions that the bird is gregarious and doesn’t give evidence why. Looking at the Talk page, it only shows that wikiprojects that it is affiliated with. Looking at the history page, it was created in 2004 which is a lot earlier than the other articles I have looked at, but is not as high of quality as others that got started later. Once again the revisions show just a slow accumulation of minor revisions has led it to how it looks currently. Zhangt2413 ( talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, all. Good work on the article! It looks like a lot of text has been added for the behavior section. I added a few edits related to readability and formatting. I split the block of text on feeding behaviors into smaller sections to focus on the particular concepts or behaviors described. Also, where needed, I added hyperlinks to clarify scientific terms used. Good work! GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL ( talk) 02:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony, overall the article looks great! I reworded the Sociality section because the use of “sometimes” was a bit redundant. Additionally, I added a hyperlink to the communal roosting page. For Feeding-related behaviors, I added a hyperlink to Munia, but other than that it looks great! For group living tradeoffs, I changed the wording of some of the sentences to improve clarity. Overall, however, I thought this section was particularly strong. I really appreciated the way you drew on a lot of different studies to prove a really strong point. There were some minor grammatical adjustments I made to the Foraging: two models, specialized foraging sections, and evolutionary stable strategies and tactics sections. In the breeding section, I adjusted a misbehaving hyperlink. This article would benefit from additional information on taxonomy, its role in culture, and its conservation status. Samara levine ( talk) 23:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
For this article, I made some slight alterations to the writing style, editing for clarity proper grammar. I corrected some run-on sentences and added some missing words. Some sentences were improperly structured and difficult to read, so I corrected these. I also fixed some of the headings, and indicated some places where a citation might be necessary.
In regards to behavior, I was wondering what significance tail flicking has. If it is significant to their behavior, I would suggest more elaboration on the subject. While reading it over I just changed some grammar and altered a couple sentences to improve the flow. I would also suggest adding more information about the bird that isn't behavior. This could give the article greater relevance to the reader. Great article
Jeremy.winkler ( talk) 21:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Cobiorower ( talk) 01:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC) cobiorower
This is a great overall article. I feel that you cover the material pretty in-depth.
Nice job with the article! You clearly did a ton of research and discusses a lot of interesting Munia behavior. For my peer review I really did not do much--I made a couple of minor revisions and broke up some paragraphs into smaller sections to make them easier to read. If you want to continue with this article, I would suggest that you start expanding other aspects of the article outside of "Foraging". Katheefwah ( talk) 19:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't have much to fix since there were so many editors before me. I made some minor grammar changes. I think the main thing to focus on is that you have a lot of subsections, more than usual pages. It seems like you made a section for each paper that you cited. Instead, you could try finding related ideas and putting them under maybe 2-3 bigger headings. I think it would make the article less choppy and more cohesive. Overall, great job. Katims90 ( talk) 18:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sainsf ( talk · contribs) 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Whew, there is a backlog in the Biology and medicine part of GAN. I shall help here, anyway, I like bird articles! My comments:
Lead section has been expanded in a format loosely based on what you mention here. Let me know if you think this needs additional work.
Just added some relevant pictures across the page and a range map from Wikimedia Commons. Let me know if these look okay.
Taxonomy section was created. Let me know if this is sufficient.
Converted!
Caption fixed.
Taxonomy sub-section has been made listing the subspecies.
Lifespan added.
Point well taken- I think I have now changed all the instances of alternate name use.
Done!
Added templates to the altitudes and commas to the section. Let me know if you think more of the latter are needed.
Australian population in Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2009 and Hawaiian population from Moulton et al. 1992; these are now added in the text.
Got it, added it in.
Added in sources from Restall's "Munias and Mannikins" & Baptista et al. 1999
Restall & Baptista et al. were added into the section
Done!
So I've trimmed parts of the Foraging section, but as you mention it is much too long to stay within behavior & ecology. I moved it to its own section with edits removing many experimental details and such. I can keep trimming down, but many of the models and behaviors have heavy emphasis in the literature as a hallmark for the species. For now, I have left much of that information in the article.
Got it!
First breeding paragraph was split up and references were added in.
Applicable sources added in.
I've found some variable information, breeders appear to indicate rapid maturity while other sources have it taking longer in the wild because environmental factors shown by that laboratory study. I wasn't able to confirm all of the information in books/academic articles, so I am unsure on the sources but I think the information looks reliable. Let me know if I should keep digging.
Fixed.
IUCN information added to section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsavalia23 ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Captions have been changed, either to full sentence format or full-stops were taken out.
This is it for now. I await your replies. This article is nice, cheers! Sainsf <^> Talk all words 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think we are done here. In my view this article is now perfect for GA status. I promote it. Congrats!
Sainsf <^>
Talk all words
12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)