Jump to content

Talk:Eurasian sparrowhawk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEurasian sparrowhawk 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 12, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 14, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Text

[edit]

Have the male/female pictures been reversed 82.31.163.181 (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract doesn't say; it refers to a "spring relapse" but also says "there was no evidence of reduced longevity in infected birds once they had dispersed from their natal nest site". From that I don't think it's clear enough to say either way. Bogbumper (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the UK, the failure rate at the egg stage had decreased from 17 % to 6 % by the year 2000"; does this indicate that the maximum egg failure rate was 17%? If it is, then to me this does not seem high enough to cause a population crash. Snowman (talk)
  • The list of subspecies in the infobox is in a different sequence to the list in the Taxonomy section. What is the correct sequence? Snowman (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do we normally refer to for this? Bogbumper (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could mean taking a first flight... I'll see if I can clarify. Bogbumper (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably. It's from here. Bogbumper (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the flight photo there as it was getting a bit crowded higher up, until something more pertinent to the section can be found. Bogbumper (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mesial what?
...But the new image of a racing pigeon is terrible. Snowman (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair point! I've found a new one. Bogbumper (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new pigeon image is better. Ideally the bird should face into the page. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They will ask for alt text to be added for the images at GA review. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done (though we don't know where it was taken for sure - probably the Netherlands). Bogbumper (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'd be making assumptions based on where the photos were taken, I'd guess. Bogbumper (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, so should the captions for the photographs indicate where the photographs were taken? Snowman (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added that where it's known. Bogbumper (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what one was (I didn't add that bit); it's labelled on this diagram though not defined in any articles. Bogbumper (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems not. Bogbumper (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I'm going to replace the current references with templates. Bear with me, please... Bogbumper (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll carry on checking anyway, so all the info should be there for you to template-ify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I think... Bogbumper (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I was once told that it's bad form to specify a width for thumbnail images, because that overrides settings that some users have. Is that correct? Guidance appreciated. Thanks. Bogbumper (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general yes, it's common for taxoboxes and maps, usually 250px, but best avoided otherwise unless there is a real point to it. I set my preference to 180, but it's personal choice really. Incidentally, you don't actually need "right" in image links, since that's the default, but it doesn't matter Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The max default is 300px, so if the image width is set to 300px, then no one will see an image less than their settings. I probably would have have increased the size of an image in the text a few months ago, but I gather that the rules on image size are more relaxed now. Anyone can change the size of the image of the chicks in the nest back to the default size. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture....

[edit]

I was musing on adding Ged (Earthsea) though I know Jim might not approve but it is an iconic book :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be sure he was hanging out with this species...? ;o) Bogbumper (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hrrumph Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual dimorphism

[edit]
  • "25 % larger than males - the largest difference between the sexes in any bird species,[2][3] though Ferguson-Lees and Christie say that "nine other mainly bird-eating Accipiters have the difference even more marked." There is a contradiction between the bit before "though" and the bit after. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources, including Prof Ian Newton's monograph, say that the difference between male and female Sparrowhawks is the greatest in any species. But Ferguson-Lees and Christie reckon it's not. So what's the best way to explain that? Your thoughts, please... Bogbumper (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurasian Sparrowhawk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MeegsC | Talk 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've signed up to review this article, which may take a few days. MeegsC | Talk 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start, with more to come soon!

Lead

[edit]
  • According to WP:MOS, there should be no space between numbers and a percent sign. There are several other percentages that should also be corrected in the article.
 Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

[edit]
 Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was the species moved from Falco to Accipiter, and by whom?
 Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here and elsewhere, the bird is sometimes referred to simply as "Sparrowhawk" rather than "Eurasian Sparrowhawk". These should be changed.
 Done Bogbumper (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What distinguishes the subspecies? Is it mostly range, or are there plumage differences as well? (The article mentions a few physical differences for some of the subspecies.)
Given they are subspecies and not species, I'd imagine the differences are subtle, like those mentioned in the text - nisosimilis stands out as the only one lacking any info. Will have a look. found some info on nisosimilos being very similar to nisus (which one would figure from the name...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description

[edit]
  • Watch for overlinking. Bird of prey, for example, is linked three times (twice in the first paragraph of this section, once in the lead) — four if you count the redirected raptor from the lead.
  • Is the throat streaked with dark at all ages, or only in juveniles? It's hard to tell from the sentence's location within the paragraph.
 Done run sentences together to make it clearer that it's the juv Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "mesial stripe", which is not something most readers are likely to be familiar with.
 Done added midline Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure all measurements have both metric and imperial values. The sentence starting "In Great Britain" has several unconverted numbers.
 Done converted two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identification

[edit]
  • Not sure about this header, since the section doesn't directly deal with identification; perhaps it should be "Confusion species", with the flight info moved up to the Description section? If the article is going to compare the Eurasian Sparrowhawk to other (similar) species, then it should explain how to differentiate them; size won't be the only difference.
I've removed this heading and reorganised "Description" in what to me seems a more logical sequence. Bogbumper, please revert or change this if you are not happy with my precipitous action Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to go with that. Bogbumper (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan and demography

[edit]
  • "The oldest recorded ringed Eurasian Sparrowhawk..." Are there older non-ringed ones? If not, consider deleting "ringed", or explaining why you've included that the bird was ringed. And according to the source of the BTO information (EURING), the bird was found dead, not trapped.
 Done Hopefully it's clearer now. Bogbumper (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the BTO page listed as the reference, the average lifespan is four years, not three. The survival percentages are also different on the BTO site: the adult survival is 69% (rather than 65.7) and the juvenile survival is 34% (rather than 39).
 Done Bogbumper (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site also says that (where possible, and I'm assuming it's possible with a widespread species like this) its numbers are estimates for UK populations. Is there a reference (perhaps HBW, for example), that has more general information — this species ranges across Europe into Asia; are the numbers the same there?
  • Does the cited reference explain why the mortality rate is higher for young males than young females? Readers are likely to be curious after reading that sentence; I certainly was!
 Done I haven't got access to the full paper, but found useful information in the monograph. It's very interesting! Bogbumper (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me if I don't finish this right away, but I have a busy few days coming up; fear not, I'll be back!  :) MeegsC | Talk 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

[edit]

Just going to jump in and make a suggestion. A good job has been done of citing the "in culture" section, but it would be better if it was de-listed and instead the facts linked with prose. Common themes can be linked, for example you could say "The Eurasian Sparrowhawk is used in literature, for example...". Have a look at Common Raven#Cultural depictions or Bird#Religion, folklore and culture for ideas on how to do this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with this. I had intended to do this myself to help out but have been snowed under. If I get a chance I might have a crack at this today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this GA review? Seems like it tapered out in the past month. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 07:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crap, the in culture section is still not done. Give me 48 hrs and I think that is the last big outstanding thing. This is the nominator's first GA nom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been waiting for the final bits to be finished. Didn't want to push, as I know what it is to be snowed under!  :) MeegsC | Talk 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MeegsC, see what you think now. I was hoping to find some all-encompassing cultural stuff but was unable - at least it is in coherent paras now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The results of the Scottish relocation trial have finally emerged so I'll add a quick summary of that tomorrow. Bogbumper (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that, by the way. Bogbumper (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do we need to do next to get this review completed? Excuse my ignorance, I haven't done this before. Thanks! Bogbumper (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

[edit]

Okay, back for more! There are only a few remaining things to fix before I give this a GA.

  • The lead needs work. It should be a summary of the article, and right now several sections are missing. There's nothing in the lead about its range, or its cultural significance (including its long-established use in falconry) and nothing about its conservation status outside Europe. There's nothing about its nest or eggs.
 Done I've had another go. Not sure if it's too long - please let me know... Bogbumper (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo captions could also use some work. Statements like "Male on kill" really don't tell the reader much (except, perhaps, the sex of the bird) he/she can't already see. How about something like "Eurasian Sparrowhawks, like this male, generally pluck the largest feathers from their prey before swallowing the meat." May pull them into reading the article, and certainly gives them more information, and a reason to look more closely at the photo.
 Done Captions extended. Bogbumper (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • The Eurasian (or Northern) Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) is a small bird of prey in the family Accipitridae which includes many other diurnal raptors such as eagles, buzzards, harriers, and other sparrowhawks. Everything after "Accipitridae is probably extraneous; if you're going to leave it in, there should at least be a comma after "Accipitridae".
  • ...females and juveniles are brown above with brown bars below. You might replace "bars" with "barring" for clarity.
  • The male is up to 25% smaller... sounds awkward, I think because up to generally implies something bigger or higher; how about The female is up to [or "as much as"] 25% larger...
  • The paragraph re: breeding needs a bit more; what type of nest, how many eggs, etc. (just a summary though).
  • Needs a brief comment re: range; only mentions being common in Europe, but it's found widely elsewhere.
 Done All addressed. Bogbumper (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • The pages in the Brisson reference cited don't tie in with Accipiters. Page 28 talks about Eurasian Coot, while page 210 talks about terns.
I don't have access to this. Can anyone else help? Bogbumper (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. n. melaschistos winters in "the plains"... What plains? Would it be correct to say It breeds in mountains from Afghanistan through the Himalayas and southern Tibet to western China, descending to neighbouring plains for the winter.?
Description
  • Females can be up to 25% larger than males – the largest difference between the sexes in any bird species,[1][2] although Ferguson-Lees and Christie report that "nine other mainly bird-eating Accipiters have the difference even more marked." Okay, that sentence just sounds nuts; it's either the largest, or it's not! How about saying something like "among the largest differences" or "one of the largest differences". It's quite possible that your first two sources—which deal only with UK and European populations—don't include species from elsewhere in the world that might be bigger (i.e. it's the biggest difference in Europe).
I suppose I was trying to acknowledge what seem to be conflicting sources, but didn't make a very good job of it! I'll hit the library again and see what I can find. Bogbumper (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed mention of [possibly] the biggest size difference between the sexes; without being able to clarify what the size refers (eg. weight, wing length) it's confusing. Bogbumper (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that all your measurement are referenced to a European field guide; you might check a raptor book that has worldwide information, just be sure the other subspecies don't have larger (or smaller) dimensions!
Back to the library for me... Bogbumper (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've changed it to HBW for now. Unfortunately I probably won't have time to get to the library much in the next few weeks. Bogbumper (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toward FA

[edit]

If you're planning to take this article on to FAC, you might consider the following:

Description
  • You should expand this section a bit; what colour are the wings, the tail, the legs, the beak? Is the tail barred? Are the wings barred when seen from below?
  • Does the adult have a "mesial stripe"? The article says youngsters lack one, but doesn't indicate anything about why this is relevant.
  • There's one sentence briefly describing its flight pattern, then a major shift into similar species. Are these other species that fly like the sparrowhawk? Or should the paragraph be split? Does this species soar? Migrate in flocks? Regarding the other species named, other than Northern Gos, the article doesn't elaborate on anything other than size. If its going to tell how to distinguish similar species, it needs to do so; otherwise, I'd remove most of this paragraph.
  • ...a protuberance on the underside of the toe means that the digit can be closed without leaving a gap. What is the significance of this (why is it important)?


So far the review is going nicely, but could it be sped up a bit on both sides? It's been in the GAN queue nearly four months (one of the oldest), and a decision from the reviewer ideally should be made in the near future. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
The article is well-written and it complies with MOS.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
    Well-referenced to reliable sources.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I thought it was a good overview, compares well with coverage of other bird articles (both GA and FA).
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All images have appropriate free use licenses.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Taxobox image

[edit]

Greetings, people!

Haven't read through the article yet, but I'd put money on that bird being a female rather than a male...! —GRM (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change it if you think it's wrong - I'm happy to stand corrected! It does look a bit on the large side, but I thought some of the barring was quite rufous. Having said that, it's obviously not a juvenile and does not look rufous enough to be a male. So....... Bogbumper (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article intro says Adult male Eurasian Sparrowhawks have bluish grey upperparts and orange-barred underparts; females and juveniles are brown above with brown barring below but the image next to it is, to me at least, distinctly bluish and barely brownish at all. Compare with the other images, the obviously brown juvenile down the page and the male, further down, which looks like the top image. Contradiction leads to confusion. 78.144.69.120 (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the caption of the second image from "Male" to "Female", as I am sure that's what it is. In the male the orange-brown colouring around the throat and belly is quite pronounced; the bird in the picture clearly lacks this colouring. Have a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newburyjohn (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The killing strike

[edit]

In a brief scan, I see no mention of the species' major weapon in taking birds in flight—namely, the last-second swing of the feet that almost doubles the speed of impact of the talons into the prey. I've seen reference to it a couple of times, and think that Attenburgh's Life of Birds demonstrated it—GRM (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Accipiter nisus edit.jpg to appear as POTD

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Accipiter nisus edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 6, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-08-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian sparrowhawk
A male Eurasian sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) capturing a common starling. This small bird of prey species is found throughout the temperate and subtropical parts of the Old World, and though it specialises in catching woodland birds it can be found in any habitat. Males tend to take smaller birds, including tits, finches, and sparrows, while the larger females catch primarily thrushes and starlings.Photograph: Pierre Dalous; edit: Nikhil
Archive – More featured pictures...

Nisus and Scylla

[edit]

I like the succinct sentence about Nisus and Scylla, but then when I followed the link to Nisos, that article says he was turned into a sea-eagle rather than a sparrowhawk.

Sea-eagle makes sense, in that Scylla was at sea clinging to Minos' ship when Nisos attacked her. But sparrowhawk makes sense as an habitual predator of larks and other small birds.

I wonder, are there different birds in differing Classical versions of the original legend, or is the variation due to later interpretation and translation?

Pelagic (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Britannica says Scylla was changed into a sea-bird, not a lark. Pelagic (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurasian_sparrowhawk&oldid=1195366963"