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 23:05, 4 April 2009 [1].

---

Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a long time in gestation, but I think it's ready now jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note although the disambig link highlights Isotherm, the meaning referred to does not have a separate page as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• removed isotherm and rephrased without technical term jimfbleak (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I'm IARing on the stamp site, I figure it's not that contentious of information) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What's IAR please?

WP:IAR or Ignore all rules. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, makes sense now (: jimfbleak (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Technical Review

• Disambiguation links are up to standards as checked with the links checker tool.
• There is one external link that is dead, I'm not sure whether this is the one Ealdgyth was referring to.

• None dead for me, but removed IBC since misdirected jimfbleak (talk)

• Ref 35 is dead.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, fixed now, don't know how that one died jimfbleak (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script)

• The following WP:REFNAME is used more than once to name a ref; a ref name should only name 1 specific ref.

• lind--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, added this ref after all the copyedits etc, careless error, fixed now jimfbleak (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. Jim, as always, this is a well-researched article; WP:BIRDS does a nice job with their articles. However, I'm wondering about the referencing. In most of the references, the author's last name comes first, but this isn't at all standardized: I found eight refs where the situation was reversed. I'd make some changes myself, but I thought perhaps there was a reason behind the unorthodox referencing. Here are the ones I found on a cursory inspection:

Kelly A. Lee; Lynn B. Martin II; Martin C. Wikelski

Peter Shurulinkov and Vassil Golemansky

Peter Puchala

Sandro Bertolino; Elena Ghiberti; Aurelio Perrone

Peter Berthold

Ján Obuch; Anton Kristin

M. Shao; T. Hounsome; N. Liu

David Costantini; Stefania Casagrande; Giuseppe Di Lieto; Alberto Fanfani; Giacomo Dell’Omo

Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• mea culpa I checked references added by other editors for formatting, but missed this, all fixed now plus some minor punctuation tweaks jimfbleak (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim. I appreciate the fixes. I'll be going through the article in the next couple of days. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent contradiction. Compare In Australia, it is found in some rural and semi-rural districts, but not cities with what the first sentence two paragraphs up: In Australia, the Tree Sparrow is present in Melbourne. 3.8 million people is definitely a city by anyone's definition. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, misrepresented source, now reads - In Australia, the Tree Sparrow is largely an urban bird, and it is the House Sparrow which utilises more natural habitats. jimfbleak (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion here: Although initially successful, the "great sparrow campaign" had overlooked the numbers of locusts and other insect pests consumed by the birds, and crop yields fell, exacerbating a famine which led to the deaths of 30 million people between 1959 and 1961. The Tree Sparrow can have other beneficial effects on agriculture. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that the death of 30 million people is a dubious benefit! Now reads - The Tree Sparrow's consumption of insects has led to its use in agriculture to control fruit tree pests and the common asparagus beetle... jimfbleak (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My concerns and observations have been fully addressed. If the potential problems listed below can be fixed, there's no reason the inaptly named Passer montanus shouldn't be a Featured Article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the careful review and support jimfbleak (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - When I was a boy, my garden was full of these delightful little birds, but sadly no longer. Which brings me to just one small nit-pick, the Tree Sparrow's extensive range and large population mean that it is not endangered globally, I don't like "mean that" very much. How about "ensure" that? Well done. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Graham, change made - we had the first one for 20 years this winter! jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - (moral only due to WP:COI via WP:BIRD membership) have looked over this article several times and think a few sentences can be simplified/shortened. This one This sparrow is distinctive even within its genus in that, unlike its relatives, it has no plumage differences between the sexes; is a candidate with several its and probably can do without the need to inform that reader that species within a genus are related. Shyamal (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shyamal, good suggestion. I've fixed that one, I'll see if any other surplus words can be removed jimfbleak (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - (probably moral only due to WP:COI via WP:BIRD membership) I have read this before and suggested some tweaks, but I think it is at the stage (for me) where any further changes are so minor and equivocal in their imporvement as not to be worth mentioning (and I forgot what they were as I have been delayed by a dodgy internet connection). I think it is over the line in terms of prose, comprehensiveness. referencing etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicks

• The family (Passeridae in this case) usually warrants a mention in the lead, espacially as there are two families of birds with many members known as 'sparrows'.

added. although I'm not fully convinced since it's just a redirect to sparrow

• In Distribution and habitat, second paragraph It was introduced successfully to Sardinia, eastern Indonesia, the Philippines and many Pacific islands, but introductions to New Zealand and Bermuda did not take root. - which Pacific islands? The Pacific is vast, but I have no recollection of Tree Sparrows occurring in Polynesia and I know they don't in Melanesia; so Micronesia and Hawaiii then?

changed to Micronesia, I overgeneralised jimfbleak (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also in that section Ship-carried birds colonised Borneo and Brunei. Brunei is a country in Borneo, so it reads like colonised Britain and Wales or something.

It's what the source said, but you're obviously right, fixed jimfbleak (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In status the range is described as includes at least 48,000 km² in Africa alone yet the map shows they have barely a toehold in Morocco. is that correct?

It's what iucn say, but I agree that it's suspect, and why Africa for a Eurasian species? I've chopped that bit jimfbleak (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is good, I'll give it another read soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Just out of curiousity, you say that "In North America, a population of about 15,000 birds has become established around St. Louis and neighbouring parts of Illinois and southeastern Iowa. These sparrows are descended from 12 birds imported from Germany and released in late April 1870 as part of a project to enhance the native North American avifauna. As elsewhere, the US Tree Sparrows have to compete with the House Sparrow in urban centres and they are therefore mainly found in parks, farms and rural woods.[8][21] The American population is sometimes referred to as the "German Sparrow", to distinguish it from both the native American Tree Sparrow species and the much more widespread "English" House Sparrow."

• I am not clear what you are saying about the Tree sparrow in North America. Are you saying, by implication ("15,000" isn't that many, if they started multiplying in 1870) that they are clustered around St. Louis and neighbouring parts, and sparse elsewhere? Or are they found in fair numbers "in parks, farms, and rural woods", which actually covers most of the United States and Canada? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the House Sparrow, they have never really broken out of the original area. rephrased for clarity as Within its limited US range, the Tree Sparrow has to compete ... jimfbleak (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follow:

• File:Tree Sparrow Japan Flip.jpg: could we not use the original File:Tree Sparrow August 2007 Osaka Japan.jpg in the Infobox? MOS:IMAGES advises not to simply flip photos just to face the text (and if there is a convincing reason to do so, the photo caption must indicate the image has been altered as such).

Answering since that image was flipped by me and feel that Tree Sparrows show much greater bilateral symmetry (unlike Wrybills) than human faces and think that the MOS deals more with human portrait flips. Shyamal (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shyamal, just looks odd facing out jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, per MOS:IMAGES, the caption should point out to the reader that such images have been altered. Jappalang (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that with a link to the original jimfbleak (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Tree-Sparrow-2009-16-02.jpg: as above, could we not use the original File:Tree-Sparrow.jpg?

As above jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed as with previous jimfbleak (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Passermontanusmap.png: what is the base map for this (i.e. the map of the continents)?

Added to image page; I didn't put in in originally since I noticed some other maps seemed to omit the balnk map details jimfbleak (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Tree of sparrows.jpg: hmmm, do we have to do what Fir00002 requests for the use of his image? He asks that we should place his name in attribution in prominence next to the image...

Is that something we do at all on Wikipedia? I've never noticed credits in the caption before. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some articles have them for certain images. For example, check out Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, particularly File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg (to be fair, this is a copyrighted photo). Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen discussions on commons resulting in the deletion of images if such conditions are being imposed against the concept of "freedom". Shyamal (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this has come up before, it's been considered that attribution on the image page meets this request jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Spurvehoeg.jpg: I am not certain if Leif Boldings has uploaded this to Wikipedia. I have sent him an email to clarify the situation. In the meantime, how about File:Sparrowhawk-Male.JPG, which clearly shows a sparrow killed by a hawk (the branches in the foreground are a bit distracting, but the moment of the kill, the sparrow clearly distinguishable, seems to make up for everything)?

excellent, image changed jimfbleak (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the images are verifiably in public domain or released under appropriate licenses. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the image review, your concerns are fixed now I hope. MoS for images really needs rationalising. If you don't reverse images, you're told they should be facing in, if you do reverse, you shouldn't have done it just to have them facing in... (: Ah well, such is life... jimfbleak (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. As for the MOS, I read it as stating that the "facing text" and "alternation" are desirable characteristics; they should be strived for unless some restrictions (e.g. Infobox placement, no casual "flipping" of image, possible misrepresentation of subject, etc) prevent such an arrangement. Such are the problems with aesthetics, I suppose... Jappalang (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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