Talk:Eurasian treecreeper

Hey guys just forget the spoken article bit ... I was acting on the spur of the moment out of angst or something. I should probably delete the huge ogg from there anyway, ought to have gone mp3 then you could make oggs all you like. But I was just in a mood I guess. The quality is pretty embarrassing too. Black Lab (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes for prospective GA reviewers

1. This woodland species appears to have no cultural significance anywhere in Europe
2. Whilst, like other woodland birds, this species will be taken as prey by species like Sparrowhawk and Tawny Owl (I've even found Treecreeper remains in a Tawny Owl pellet) it's so obvious that nothing I can find specifically refers to this bird
3. Similarly avian diseases and parasites

Jimfbleak (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Review suggestions

A well-referenced, well-written article. Jimfbleak is making the rest of us look bad, and I wish he would cut it out. :P Some suggestions:

1. About the predators and diseases, how about a more general reference and a sentence like "Like all treecreepers, the Common Treecreeper is preyed on by..." Of course, you'd still want the reference to explicitly say "all treecreepers" or mention the species specifically.
2. Any reason not to add Image:Status iucn3.1 LC.svg to the infobox?
3. Don't they say not to left align images at the beginnings of sections or subsections?
4. Most of your sources are good, but some are primary studies, not the best. It'll probably get you in trouble for FAC. You'd be better off finding secondary sources like review articles that cite these. Do you have access to ISI? You can use it to find articles that cite a given article.
5. behind the bark of introduced Giant Sequoia is Giant Sequoia plural?
6. What are rufous rumps? There are actually a bunch of bird words in the article that are probably unfamiliar to the lay reader and should be explained or at the very least wikilinked.
7. The sexes are similar, but the juvenile has duller upperparts than the adult, and is duller underneath with darker fine spotting on the flanks Something weird happened between the beginning and end of this sentence.
8. For the paragraph beginning The contact call is a very quiet... has a lot of unfamiliar bird sound words. Is there an article like list of bird calls or something that you can link to? Otherwise, could you explain each one? Also, this paragraph is unreferenced.
9. Under "Description", sometimes an article is used with the species name, sometimes not. Similarly, throughout the article, sometimes it's the Common Treecreeper, sometimes it's Common Treecreeper.
10. The article goes into detail about other treecreepers, e.g. with the paragraph beginning Brown Treecreeper has never been recorded in Europe... It's confusing because the reader has a hard time figuring out which are different species and which are subspecies of the Common Treecreeper (or sometimes considered subspecies, or whatnot). Maybe a parenthetical explanation of each one would be helpful. If the Brown Treecreeper is a different species, why not discuss it in that article?
11. Maybe switching the order of "taxonomy" and "description" would help with the confusion about the different species in "description".
12. What is an autumn vagrant?
13. since Short-toed has a distinctive series of evenly spaced notes - can you call it that? Just Short-toed?
14. In Asia, if Hodgson's Treecreeper is treated as a subspecies of Common Treecreeper, its plain tail distinguishes it from Bar-tailed Treecreeper, which has a distinctive barred tail pattern, and its white throat is an obvious difference from Brown-throated Treecreeper. Not clear what this sentence means, maybe it could be two. Do you mean if Hodgson's Treecreeper is treated as a subspecies of Common Treecreeper, the plain tail of the former distinguishes it...?
15. Such a minor point I'm embarrassed to even be bringing it up: The blue doesn't show up well in Image:Treecreepermap.png since it is so small; maybe you could change it to a more contrasting color?
16. Hodgson's Treecreeper is a more recent split following studies of cytochrome b mtDNA sequence and song structure that indicate that it constitutes a distinct species. Wording is a little awkward.
17. The word intergrade is linked to Hybrid (biology), which doesn't mention the word. What does it mean?
18. It prefers well-grown trees - "well-grown"?
19. I've noticed a lot of paragraphs begin with it. It sounds a little informal and maybe a little confusing. For example, there's a lot of its in the first paragraph under "Feeding".
20. isotherm is a dab lk.
21. My personal preference would be to expand (typical clutch 5–6 eggs) to a full sentence, but if you know the standards for that, ignore me.
22. I don't know if the paragraph about predation fits under breeding, maybe it needs a whole new section.
23. it will occasionally feed on walls - confusion with the use of feed on. Maybe eat on?
24. If a male disappears, the unpaired female will forage at lower heights, spend less time on each tree and have shorter foraging bouts than a paired female. This is very detailed. As a lay reader, I don't see the significance. Does it imply something important, or is it just the results of this study? Also, this is a primary source, not the best, especially if you're citing their findings, rather than info from the intro or discussion where they're discussing background info. I'd suggest removing this, especially if it's the former.
25. The paragraph beginning This bird may sometimes join mixed-species feeding flocks switches topics to discussion of ants after that sentence. If I'm reading it right, it sounds like we're talking about competition for food; this might be a good place to transition into predation if you're going to put that into a new section. The last sentence under the "Habits" section also discusses hanging out with other birds in winter, why not move the first sentence from this paragraph there?
26. The material under "Habits" is repeated from elsewhere in the article and reads like a very introductory paragraph. For example, the using the tail for support is mentioned in the lead and the first sentence under feeding. Mouse and butterfly are common words and I don't know that they should be linked.
27. Would it be possible to find any info on courtship? How about more on evolutionary history?

Very nicely done article, more than good enough to pass GA as is, though I hope these comments will still be helpful. Don't hesitate to give me a holler if you need any clarification or further input. delldot talk 06:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review

1. Well written?: Beautifully. There are some words that are likely unfamiliar to the lay reader and should be explained, I've discussed some of them above.
2. Factually accurate?: Passes WP:V, sources cited for every paragraph but one, which isn't controversial.
3. Broad in coverage?: Fine, one instance of detail I thought was excessive, but nothing dramatic.
4. Neutral point of view?: Fine.
5. Article stability?: Fine.
6. Images?: All check out fine.
Great job, obviously the work of a seasoned GA and FA writer. Here it is: Congratulations! delldot talk 06:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

wording

I think the wording may be wrong.

"...but eggs and chicks are vulnerable to attack by woodpeckers and mammals, including squirrels."

to

"...but eggs and chicks are vulnerable to be attacked by woodpeckers and mammals, including squirrels."

If reading quickly or breifley, it will seem to mean that the eggs and chicks attack via woodpeckers and mammals. Androo123 (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't really see that the current phrasing is ambiguous, unless North American usage is different. jimfbleak (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the desired name Eurasian treecreeper ?

I thought that English vernacular names were not per se capitalized. Of course WP article titles are capitalized and a word like Eurasian would be as well. DCDuring (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)