The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:33, 23 August 2011 [1].

Corn Crake[edit]

Corn Crake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once common, and the cause of many sleepless nights, this rail has now declined over much of its range due to changes in haymaking techniques. There is a bucketful of information out there, but much is repetitive or concerned with local conservation projects. If I've omitted anything important, let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I started with the template, but it wouldn't display properly, so ditched. I don't think it's mandatory to use the template, I've used text in many other FAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is not a "Requirement" however it is the closest thing to a gold standard that we have for the logical and orderly display of the information, so it's a "strongly recommended" in my book. I'll look into the display issues for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed that the description in the copyright box was adequate, but translation added now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, the egg actually had a caption, but it didn't show because it wasn't a thumbnail Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually show a predator or parasite, it's appropriate in this section and hasn't been queried before. I assume that "mow" was a common enough word not to need a link, but maybe a different term is used for grass cutting in North America. Now linked in caption and first occurrence in text. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review. All above fixed. I couldn't see any other editor inconsistencies apart from the Kees/Koffijberg slip, let me know if I've missed something. Ref 22 tweaked and isbn fixed. Series name removed, abbreviations spelt out. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There were a few typos such as "...a loud nocturnal call that sometimes leadto disturbed sleep for rural dwellers, the Corn Crake..." under the In Culture section. Also, in the Status section, the phrase "In much of the west of its range," was at first a bit confusing. It might be beneficial to change it to something such as "In much of the western half of its range," A ctrl+F search showed that in the Distribution and Habitat section, "Corncrake" appeared twice. In the Status section, "Corncrake" appears three times, one of which is lacking capitalization. I am unsure if this is necessary, but you might consider adding a source stating that its name was derived from the krek krek call of the male. Hopefully my comments are of use, even if they are a bit "nitpicky". Micromann (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for comments. Typos fixed, also name — I'm afraid I still think of it as one word. "Status" tweaked as suggested. With regard to the call, if you mean in the Lead section, having references there is now discouraged. The derivation and the call are referenced under "Taxonomy" and "Voice" respectively. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. Sorry, I did not know that was discouraged. Thanks for the speedy response. Micromann (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lit review Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm not sure if the comprehensive criterion is yet met. There's a lot of published scientific literature... here's a small sampling of publications from 2009–2011 that, judging by their titles, look interesting and possibly suitable for inclusion. I can prepare a more comprehensive list if you like. Sasata (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for lit review. I said in the nom above that there is a huge amount of literature, and I've had to be selective. I get no clear sense from the list of what you think has been inadequately covered. I've deliberately avoided articles like the Yorkshire one — there are lots of similar regional items, mostly in the UK, and I thought it more important to paint the overall picture for Europe, rather than have an endless parochial list of local declines. Similarly, of those articles I've seen, I can't see what the Irish, Transyvanian or Egyptian articles add in terms of new content, as opposed to local detail. I've used several of Rhys Green's studies, but I couldn't see that the one you quote was adding a great deal that was new. I have used the Graham source now, which I overlooked despite having a hard copy. It's a captive study, but since it suggests only that only the male builds the nest, whereas the prestigious BWP, and all other sources which give an opinion (Taylor doesn't), say only the female, that's clearly worth mentioning. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, in retrospect most are local reports. I'll move this list to the archive talk page; I'm away for about a week, and will give a full review then. Sasata (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Consider all my comments below dealt with; I believe the article meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Occasional small frog or mammal" 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It says Clay on the title page
  • There's something seriously wrong with the version you have linked. Pages jump from 384 to 805, and recipes from 817 to 1778. The land rail recipe is 1033, as listed in the index, but of course doesn't appear at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha:

  • Since the Faroes are self-governing, I treated the archipelago as a country. Linked now to be on the safe side Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't finished reading yet. Ucucha 03:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No it doesn't make sense. Although it's what the book source says, it's clearly inconsistent with the rock-solid data from the BTO and the Rhys Green paper. Rephrased as "some individuals may live for 5–7 years."
Thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as all comments have been addressed (long ago, in fact). The article still looks good. Ucucha (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Philcha:

  • Most bird articles start with Taxonomy, so we can define what we are talking about. Since I want this to end up in a featured topic, I'm reluctant to change the order, although I agree with with making it more readable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much of it is basic stuff - common names, who named it, relatives etc. But more importantly, many many bird and other FAs have taxonomy as section number 1 - this allows "description" to be section number 2 and have images in that section not abut the taxobox. Hence we'd then have inconsistent formatting across bird FAs. We can examine order of all articles in an RfC.Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re location of "Taxonomy", OK (sigh!). --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was added by another editor. Now "The earlier use of crex gives it priority over Bechstein's specific name pratensis, and leads to the current name of Crex crex, which reads better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll think again about "thick vegetation", after seeing section "Distribution and habitat" para 2. Would "moderate vegetation" do the job? --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for review so far, there was an edit conflict half way through editing here, please check that nothings been lost or altered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Jimfbleak. AFAIK None of my comments were lost. Might be good to check with Casliber. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll check out your responses, and then work through the rest (?later). --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As suggested, although I've kept the habitat bits for breeding and wintering as separate paras; although similar, they're not identical. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The large-scale structure is better, thanks. I've comments about individual paras, see below. --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • now "Although it has been lost from much of its historic range, this bird was once found in suitable habitat in Eurasia everywhere between latitudes 41°N and 62°N.". Is that clearer? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still have "in golf courses" - is there a reason for "in". I suggested "around" as I couldn't imagine the birds feeding in putting greens or bunkers or even the fairway - but I could be wrong. PS I've w-linked golf courses. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think section "Distribution and habitat" is now fine. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Confiding" is actually often used in bird books, but I take the point, changed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, but avoided repetition by saying "poultry feed"
  • Is there a reason for not moving "If flushed by a dog, ... crouch on landing"? --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked the sequence a bit, but it's unclear when the male builds the nest since it's only just been discovered that he does so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bleeding edge of zoology ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it better to re-structure these sentences, e.g.: first nest in a scrape among grassland, etc.; 2nd nest higher from the ground, as the grass is then longer. This is a quite tentative suggestion, as each of the sources seems to give only some pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. But if it is possible, it would avoid contradiction. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried in the original text to convey that the nest was still on the ground "higher altitude than the first... later-developing grasses further up a hill" I've obviously failed, but I can't see how to make it clearer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "further up a hill" makes all the difference! --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many birds, like pheasants and other game birds and rails, have little or no involvement in rearing the brood after copulation. Except in very cold or wet weather, the female comes off the eggs at intervals to feed herself. It's probably not possible to source this for individual species because it's normal behaviour Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I can only spell "ornithology" on good days :-( --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added, but after first sentence, since the omnivority(?) and general nature of its invertebrate diet is the same everywhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought an area covering most of Eurasia could reasonably be described as "huge". "Large" seems like understatement. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't "from Ireland all the way to central Siberia" just before "estimated at 12,400,000 km2" be concise and resolve the vagueness of "huge". --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just removed "huge" — numbers in millions of square miles speak for themselves Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of fun for those who last the course - editors, reviewers and readers :-D --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed dead Rothschild and ABC urls, these are real publications, so a weblink is a bonus anyway. Removed non-essential Arkive EL. I can't see any web-only refs without an access date, and web versions of real publications don't need them. Have I missed something? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn Intended to get to reviewing this one, but forgot about it, sorry!

  • I'm not sure what you are getting at, the Bechstein ref immediately follows that name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant the authority, the author- (Linnaeus, 1758) and all that. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that I could put "(Bechstein, 1803)", but since I've just said that it was created by Bechstein in 1803, that seems a bit redundant. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was meaning specifically in the taxobox- it just looks a little lonely without it. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC
  • The convention is that just the lowest rank gets the authority, so Linnaeus here, Bechstein on the Crex page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough- as you can see on (for instance) Leotia lubrica, on fungal articles we typically list the authorities for the synonyms as well as for the accepted binomial. If that's not how it's done with bird articles, so be it. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added Bewick image, as you suggest. I can't fit the other image in description because of the map, but moved to habitat instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I normally put refs at the end of all the text to which they refer, I don't like repeating the same ref in continuous prose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read every word, but it's looking great. It's great to have the poetry- that really adds something. J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kaldari:

  • Well, the image is tiny anyway, so I'm reluctant to make it even smaller. At least it confirms the ID Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good according to Cryptic C62 · Talk:

  • Unfortunately not. It's the nature of this species to hide in the grass., I've heard, but never seen one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, poop. If any decent images do pop up, I'm sure you'll make good use of them. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • now although individuals from the east of the breeding range tend to be slightly paler than their western counterparts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually very common usage in bird publications, because it perfectly describes the colour of many birds, thanks for link Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skulking" is often used for birds that hide in dense vegetation, but now changed to "elusive" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I would have liked to have read more about the campylobacter problem, but that's because sadly I am more interested in bacteria than birds :-) Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a double image in the "Status" section which is not ... ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, after manually loading the image, now it's there (in my cache), so I don't know what caused that problem ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More