Talk:Pectoral sparrow

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pectoral sparrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk · contribs) 21:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 10:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this article. Yakikaki (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I've read the article and it is very nice. It is already of high quality, and I don't foresee any major obstacles to giving it status as GA. A few points should however be addressed. I'll start with some stylistic points:

Lead section

• It has 2 subspecies. Change to "It has two subspecies." per MOS:NUMERAL. There are a few other instances later in the article that need to be changed as well.
• Like other sparrows in its family Arremon, it has pale green-to-olive wings, however its breast has a distinctive black band going across it, however in subspecies nigrirostris it is not continuous and instead breaks in the center. There are two "however"s after each other. Could you re-phrase this, please?
• It is found in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, and Venezuela. I would suggest changing this to something along the lines of "It is found in central South America." "Major" examples of countries should not be wikilinked per MOS:OVERLINK, though here (and elsewhere in the article) it may be difficult to draw the line. I do however note that the stylistic guidelines explicitly gives Brazil as an example of a country that should not be linked. Personally I would say that maybe French Guiana, Guyana and Suriname could be keep the links throughout the article, I would assume they are a bit less widely known than the others.
• Do however link "phenology".
• A general comment: you switch between describing the species in plural as "they" and singular, as "it", throughout the article. It's not particularly disturbing, I'm just curious if it's a conscious decision or not? If not, you may want to consider being consistent throughout.

Taxonomy

• Given its Latin name, it could be good to include in brackets that "L'Oiseau Silencieux" actually means "The silent bird".
• Are genera "erected"? It sounds a bit strange to me but I'm not very familiar with the terminology.

Description

• Its underparts are white or creamy, with males also having a broad black band going across their breast (a pectoral band). Later, you write that IMale and female plumage is distinctly different, with females having dull olive upperparts instead of bright yellow, a grayish pectoral band, and greyer, darker underparts. So do the males have creamy or bright yellow underparts?
• The pectoral sparrow is fairly unique in its habitat, I would suggest instead writing something like "The pectoral sparrow is not easily confused with any other bird in its habitat".

Distribution and habitat

• They do not migrate. This can be removed, it is already stated in the first sentence of the section.

Behavior

• I would move the first, stand-alone sentence to under the heading "Breeding", it looks kinda lonely there and I guess the sentence refers to its breeding habits?
• They consists -> "It consists" or "They consist".
• leaves(20%) and pale brown rootlets(80%) I think there should be space between the words and the brackets.
• All nests studied In what study? Either rephrase or make a brief reference ("A study in Peru showed that...").
• Incubation was done, Females averaged, trips included etc – again, this sounds like references to a study. Either make it explicit or change the tempus to present ("Incubation is done", "Females average", "trips include").
• Feeding behavior is not well studied. They have been observed... I would change it to: "Feeding behavior is not well studied. Pectoral sparrows have been observed..."

Conservation

• The population size is declining at an estimated rate of 5–9% over the 2016–2026 period -> change to "declined".

That's it for now. I'll have a look at the sources as well and get back on those, and any possible remaining issues as soon as possible. Thanks, Yakikaki (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources used

I've made spot checks of sources 1, 3, 8 and 9, and found no issues. Source 13 appears to be a self-published website, and is not ideal, but it is used to support an uncontroversial claim about the range of the bird which also appears corroborated by the IUCN distribution map, so I can live with it. Sources 2, 4 and 5 are primary sources, but they are fine to use in this way. My only shadow of doubt is about source 5; is there any later, secondary source that confirms that it was Hermann who coined the name? That could be useful.

Conclusion

Apart from the stylistic suggestions above and my comments on the sources used (which only really contains one question mark), I have spotted no other issues that would stop this from being promoted to GA. It is well-written, verifiable with no issues, broad enough in its coverage, neutral, stable, and the illustrations chosen are excellent. The main image in the infobox is particularly good quality, crisp and shows the bird very well in its habitat.

Cheers, Yakikaki (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Yakikaki I should have (hopefully) addressed all your comments. Thank you for reviewing this article! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks MSK, I can see that you have made several changes. However the first three random things I looked at, bullet points 4 and 11, have not been addressed as far as I can see. There are also no responses to my questions/queries and my concern about source number 5 haven't been addressed. Could you go through my points one by one and reply under each bullet point/heading what you have done, I think that would be more transparent for both. Thanks. Yakikaki (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to find something for source 5, 11 and 4 should be  Done though. Sorry about that. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Yakikaki Avibase also lists Hermann as the describer of "Tanagra taciturna". monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@MSK: Sorry for the radio silence, I've been busy for a few days. All right, everything seems to be addressed. I will mark it as passed. Yakikaki (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)