Talk:Curlew sandpiper

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by Materialscientist. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Curlew Sandpiper → Curlew sandpiper
• Green Sandpiper → Green sandpiper
• Least Sandpiper → Least sandpiper
• Pectoral Sandpiper → Pectoral sandpiper
• Purple Sandpiper → Purple sandpiper
• Red Knot → Red knot
• Semipalmated Sandpiper → Semipalmated sandpiper
• Solitary Sandpiper → Solitary sandpiper
• Spotted Sandpiper → Spotted sandpiper
• White-rumped Sandpiper → White-rumped sandpiper

– Invert the redirections as the consensus and guidelines recommend not to capitalise the common (vernacular) names of species. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms. Coreyemotela (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support, finally. If this is proceeding according to some category-walking patterns, be it taxonomic or geographical, that seems like a good idea. Anyone who's taking on the downcasing in the actual article text, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#The conversion is challenging; there are devils in the details. There's talk elsewhere of using bots or AWB scripts to move a lot of these articles and decapitalize within them, but I suspect this will be difficult to sort out, and the work might as well get started manually while that is worked up. A deeper question is how many of these are at IOC names that are not actually the WP:COMMONNAMEs, and thus need a different kind of move, for article titling policy reasons (many IOC names are made up by IOC and are unattested outside their own materials. Sometimes the scientific name is most common, in other cases other English-language or assimilated non-English names are common and the IOC ones are neologisms. In most cases the IOC names are fine.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Y Pages were moved by Materialscientist (talk · contribs). Coreyemotela (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Calidris ferruginea, winter adult, Pak Thale.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 21 January 2019. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-01-21. 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  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) is a small wader that breeds on the tundra of Arctic Siberia. It is a strongly migratory bird, wintering mainly in Africa, but also in Australia, New Zealand, and south and southeast Asia. The curlew sandpiper is similar to the dunlin, and has a length of 18–23 cm (7.1–9.1 in) and wingspan of 38–41 cm (15–16 in). In breeding season it has a bright red underside. This picture shows a curlew sandpiper in Thailand, with its winter plumage.Photograph: JJ Harrison

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk · contribs) 22:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Michael Aurel (talk · contribs) 09:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Monkeysmashingkeyboards. I'll review this one. I'll hopefully give my comments in the next day or two. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• The curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) is a small wader – If I'm honest, I didn't know what a "wader" was when I read this. Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, would it be appropriate to add something like "or shorebird", maybe in brackets?

   Done changed to "shorebirds" since wader and shorebird are interchangable. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• first described in 1763 by Erik Pontoppidan in the Tringa family – I'm not really familiar with biology terminology, but does one say that a species is described in a particular family? If not, would something like "assigned to" work better, perhaps?

   Done changed to "as part of" monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• It's possible something has gone over my head here, but the article on Tringa describes it as a genus, and part of the family Scolopacidae.

   Done mistake on my end. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk)

• A bit of pedantry: should terms like "Tringa" and "Calidris" be italicised?

   Done, quoting WP:WikiProject Tree of Life: Names of genera are always italicized and capitalized, e.g. Homo, Rosa, Saccharomyces. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Furthermore, they breed in the Siberian Arctic, remaining there from June to August. – I'm omit "furthermore" here.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• The non-breeding juvenile plumage resembles that of adults, except with steadier feather pattering, – Should this be "patterning"?

   Done silly typo. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• They look similar to the red knot and red phalarope while breeding, and while non-breeding, they resemble the dunlin and stilt sandpiper. – Would "They resemble the red knot and red phalarope while breeding, and the dunlin and stilt sandpiper while non-breeding" work?

   Done Swapped the words around, should be clearer. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've meddled with this. Hopefully that's alright. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Its courtship behavior is complex, with multiple different displays, including a faux-nest display where the male makes a pretend nest to present to the female, a graceful aerial chase accompanied with frequent trilling calls, and the precouplary display. – A few points on this one:
  • As we've referred to them in the plural up until now, and this is the start of a new paragraph, I'd use the full name.

     Done, changed to plural. courtship is between a male and a female, though, so that remains singular. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  • I think "faux-nest" is already implied by "pretend nest".

     Done, removed redundancy. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Is "precouplary" a word?

     Done 'nother silly typo. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• They are omnivorous, foraging wetlands – Technically, we're saying here that the birds are wetlands. Maybe "and forage"?

   Done added definitive article "..., foraging the wetlands". monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)f

• It is now placed with 23 other sandpipers in the genus Calidris, which was introduced in 1804 by the German naturalist Blasius Merrem. – Did Merrem himself place it in this genus, or has that only been done by later scholars?

   Done Merrem was especially vague: quote, Knussel, Calidris. Beak cylindrical, becoming thicker toward the tip, smooth. Middle and outer toes somewhat connected. Tringa calidris, arenaria and others. However the taxonomic authorities recognized it some time later and moved ferrugineus to Calidris later. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• The specific ferruginea is from the Latin ferrugo, ferruginis, – Hmm. What do we mean by "The specific ferruginea"? I'm assuming something like "the specific term ferruginea"?

   Done you're looking for "specifc epithet." monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• the Latin ferrugo, ferruginis, "iron rust" referring to its colour in breeding plumage. – Comma after "iron rust".

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• At the end of the "Taxonomy" section, would appending the second paragraph to the first be appropriate? I'd tend to avoid single-sentence paragraphs.

   Done merged into first paragraph. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Its bill is black, irises dark brown, and toes and tarsi dark grey to black – This is mostly fine, but I think the "is" in the first phrase means the singular tense is implicitly present in the last two phrases. That is, they read as "irises [is] dark brown, and toes and tarsi [is] dark grey to black".

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• The curlew sandpiper is a small wader 21 cm (8.3 in) in length and weighing 57 g (2.0 oz), – I think there should be a comma after "wader".

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• are white, with broad, pale grey retrices – Should this be "rectrices"? I'd also give a link for this.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• white supercilium with greyish-brown lores and auriculars. The definitive prebasic molt, – As above, I think some sort of explanation would be helpful here.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• taking place July–November and lasting as late as April for some southern populations, – I think "July" should be preceded by "from". I'd also write out "July to November" in words (this applies in a few places below as well). By "lasting as late as April", do we mean that it could last all the way from July to April?

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• The definitive prealternate molt – As above, I think we'll need to explain what this is.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• which occurs from January–May, and is a partial molt, meaning only body feathers are replaced, not flight feathers – No "and" before "is".
• The definitive alternative plumage (returning breeders) is sexually dimorphic. – As I don't think the breeders themselves are the plumage, would something like "displayed by the returning breeders" be appropriate? I'd also link sexual dimorphism.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• The lower scapulars, along with the upper wing coverts and commonly the tertials, – As above, I think we need some explanations.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• except for the central rectrices and/or 2-3 tertials, – I'd write out what's being said by the slash and the hyphen in words.

   Done misread the source. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've converted the hyphen to "to". Hopefully that's alright. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Non-breeding juveniles (juveniles) – Why do we repeat "juveniles"?

   Done it's also called "juvenile" in the technical plumage name, removed monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• resulting in a scaly appearance, as well as an overall more buff-tinged appearance – I'd condense this to something like "resulting in a scaly and more buff appearance". I'd also link buff (colour), as I think that's the "buff" we're talking about.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• The crown and nape are dusky with pale creamy streaks, with the nape being slightly paler, and the rectrices are narrower and more tapered. – Not quite sure this works grammatically. Would something like "The crown and nape are dusky with pale creamy streaks, the nape slightly paler, and the rectrices narrower and more tapered" work?

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• As I've given the same suggestion a few times by now, it might be more helpful if I mention which terms I think need explaining in one go. In the next few paragraphs: "preformative molt", "overwintering", and "first prealternate molt". I'd also include a link to overwintering.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• The formative plumage is similar to the definitive basic, – Is "formative" plumage different to the "preformative" molt we mentioned earlier? If so, in what way?

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• The first prealternate molt, which occurs April–June, – "from" is needed here, I think, and I'd include "to".

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Done this myself, as I think it's uncontroversial. Hopefully that's ok. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• meaning while body feathers are largely or completely replaced, few if any flight feathers are replaced. – "that" should come after "meaning", I think.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• which are fully rufous instead of just a tint – Would "instead of tinted" work, perhaps?

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Maybe a little picky, but we use "[colour]ish" a fair bit in this section. If it doesn't affect the meaning too much, could a few of these be swapped out for "[colour]"?

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Each song lasts for 10-15 seconds – I'd make this an endash or write "to".

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Their non-breeding or juvenile plumage – As this is the start of a new section, "their" isn't really referring back to anything here; I'd use the full name again.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• looks similar to other species in its genus, – "its" should be "their", so that it agrees with the "their" at the beginning of the sentence.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• The dunlin, which has a much less distinct supercilium and a straighter bill, along with a generally stouter appearance, with the wingtips barely if at all extending beyond the tip of the tail. – This one isn't a complete sentence.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

This is down to the end of the "Similar species" section. I'll hopefully get to the rest soon. I think that most things here are trending in the right direction, and my only real concern is that there are a some technical terms which aren't explained. A good general rule of thumb is that if a term won't be familiar to a regular person with no prior knowledge of the field, an explanation is probably a good idea (or, at minimum, a link). – Michael Aurel (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Most of you've done with these looks good. My only real concern is that I don't think some of the explanations have come through. For example, I'm still not totally sure what "coverts" are, and I can't say I fully understand some of the molt terminology. I've left some points open, and I think it'd be worth revisiting those (let me know if you'd like me to move them to one area, so that you don't need to trek through the struck points). It might not be necessary to provide an explanation in all cases (eg. something like "pre-juvenile molt" might be self-explanatory enough if all we need to know is that it happens before the bird is a juvenile), but in most instances I suggest considering whether or not someone who's never heard any biology or bird jargon before will be able to get through the sentence without wondering what certain terms mean. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt responses. I'll charge onwards:

• They are notably missing east of the Verkhoyansk Range during migration, – I'd give a bit of an idea of where the Verkhoyansk Range is.

   Done, added an efn monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• includes coastal regions of West (from Gabon to Mauritania and including Cape Verde) – I'd add "Africa" after "West", to make this a little more explicit.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Additionally present, albeit rarer, inland from Niger to Chad and throughout the Republic of the Congo to Angola, as well as along the Nile from Sudan to Egypt and southeastern Tunisia. – Not sure this quite adds up to a full sentence. Would something like "They are also present, albeit less commonly, ..." work?

   Done, sentence was missing a subject so I added one. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've changed "rarer" to "more rarely", as the former didn't quite work. Hopefully that's alright. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• However, they are much rarer along the coast of Australasia and inland Victoria and New South Wales, – As "Australasia" is a region which encompasses multiple landmasses, I'm not sure it's ideal write about a single "coast". Something like "coasts" or "coastal regions" might work (though you'll need to check that it doesn't sound as though we're talking about coasts in inland Victoria and NSW). Alternatively, "Australia" in place of "Australasia" might work, as we seem to talk about the coasts of New Zealand later in the sentence.

  Made "coast" plural, should be enough. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Nice, what you've done works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• They do not overwinter in the rest of Eurasia. – There's nothing wrong with this, but it's not clear why this is separated from the earlier discussion about Eurasia.

  I don't think there was anything earlier about Eurasia so I just moved it to the back. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• During the non-breeding season, they are commonly found along sheltered mudflats, as well as saltpans and wetland edges; inland they occupy the edges of various bodies of water, especially if they have muddy or sandy coasts; they are additionally found along sewage ponds. – Don't think having two semicolons works here.

   Done, split into 2 sentences. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• The curlew sandpiper is a common migratory vagrant in North America, especially along the Atlantic coast, with 17 per year observed along the Atlantic Seaboard between 1985 and 1994, compared to 2 per year on the Pacific coast from 2010 to 2020, and 1-2 per year inland (also 1985-1994). – A few points on this one:
  • I'd link "vagrant".
  • Is there any reason we use both "Atlantic Coast" and "Atlantic Seaboard"?
  • Don't think "1-2 per year inland (also 1985-1994)" quite works: we should write out the ranges, and I think "1985" should be preceded by "from" or a similar word.
  • As it's a bit short, would it be appropriate to attach this to an earlier paragraph?

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• and males were observed to be more faithful to their sites compared to females – We move from the present to the past tense here. Would something like (as a separate sentence) "Males are more faithful to their sites than females, and both have their breeding plumage when they arrive at their breeding sites" work? If we need to include "observed", I'd go for "It has been observed that males ...".

  I think I fixed it, but best you check. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• however, they do not migrate for breeding their first breeding season, – I'd add "in" or "during" here, as I think this is technically saying that they were breeding the season.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• They rarely swim while feeding. – As this is quite short, would it possible to attach or work this in to another sentence?

   Done moved to feeding monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• lagoon islets; occasionally dunes, reefs, or beach wrack at high tide – Semicolons should be followed by full sentences.

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Females would move around an area about several acres – We've shifted from the present tense to the habitual past tense (that is, we're using "would" now).
• around an area about several acres large feeding – I think a comma before "feeding" is probably needed.
• Hmm. The tense in this section is doing a few different things: in some places we have the habitual past tense ("the male would pursue"), in others the simple past tense ("he lifted his wings"), and in others the present tense ("performs the chase call"). This probably doesn't need to be totally consistent for the GA criteria to be met, but I do think it'd be good to make this a bit more harmonious.
• The aerial chase closely resembled territorial conflicts; however, unlike an aerial chase, which was lithe and graceful in comparison, the latter was much more erratic, with substantially more sharp turns and gyrations. – I think this can be condensed: would something like "The aerial chase closely resembled territorial conflicts, though the latter was more erratic, with sharper turns and gyrations" work?
• is often preceded by the courtship attitude behavior – Hmm, it's possible I'm misreading, but should "the" be here?
• He proceeded to ... and moss with their claws – "their" should be "his", for consistency.
• A precopulatory display, the other courtship display – I think the second phrase can be omitted.
• He would also raise his head and fan and lower his tail. – By "fan", are we referring to a fantail? It's possible I'm just forgetting, but I don't think we've mentioned so far that they have fantails.
• The female, who up to this point ignored his shenanigans, – Mmm. A little informal, I think. How about "who has so far ignored him"?
• with especially early breeders ... with the majority of pairs – Would swapping out the second "with" for "and" work?
• making it look a roughy continuous shade of olive-brown – The subject of the sentence is plural, so "it" should be "them". How about "giving them a roughly ..."?
• At birth, nestlings are precocial – I'd include a link and a brief explanation.
• covered with down, – Probably also worth a link.
• with instances of pairs displaying complete disregard – Maybe "and pairs sometimes display ..."? I think we'd probably need to have some context to talk about specific instances.
• Territorial behaviors included: Localized area of activity, – Hmm. Can an area be an activity?
• It mostly eats insects and other small invertebrates like crabs, molluscs, or worms, supplemented with various seeds. – I suggest switching to "they" here, as the plurality has changed from the previous sentence.
• with the oldest sandpiper observed being 19 years old – "oldest observed", maybe?
• They are subject to infestations from parasitic worms, with a total of 154 worms collected from 5 curlew sandpipers, – I'd give a bit of an explanation of the context in which these were collected.
• A total of 5 species of helminths were observed – As "helminth" seems to be an alternative name for "parasitic worm", I'd use the latter.
• on the population of lemmings (West Siberian lemmings (Lemmus sibiricus), – I think there might be a stray bracket here?
• In poor lemming years – "years with few lemmings"?
• such as the Arctic fox (Alopes lagopus) will take Arctic-breeding waders instead. – Hmm, what do we mean by "take" here?
• Also, should this be "Alopex lagopus"?
• It has an extremely large range, – I think what "it" refers to here is ambiguous.

   Done I think I've addressed everything from here and up. Sorry for dragging this review on so long, I've been busier in school and haven't had as much time to focus on Wikipedia. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  No problem at all. I've been more than a little sluggish here myself. I'll look over some of what you've done tonight, and hopefully get around to the rest tomorrow. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This is down to the end. I'll hopefully do the spot checks and other such things tomorrow. I've struck all of the points from the first part of the review that I'm confident have been addressed, and I'll supply a few follow-up points where I've left things open. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Moving on to the image review, everything looks good with respect to copyright. The captions generally seem fine. I'd rephrase the caption for the picture of the flying bird (In flight, note the prominent white wing stripe), per MOS:NOTE, and I think the caption for the picture of the egg (currently Egg) could be a little more descriptive, but these are minor matters.

Here are a few spot checks:

• Ref 5. All good.
• Ref 13a. I'm not sure I spot the bit covering "occasionally barred with red in some adults"; I'm looking under "Plumages, Molts, and Structure", but I'm possibly in the wrong spot. Everything else seems fine.
• Ref 13e. All looks good.
• Ref 16a. Mostly fine. It's very possible I'm missing it, given the paper has a lot of pages, but I don't see an explicit statement that "only males sing". It's certainly true that the authors only discuss male singing, but I don't think this necessarily precludes the existence of female singing.
• Ref 17. As long as they breed during the part of the year which isn't winter, I think this is fine.
• Ref 28: Mmm. This is fine in terms of verifiability, but I do think there could be a WP:CLOP issue here. The article has at Langebaan Lagoon, where they are most numerous, indicate a 40% decline in numbers between 1975 and 2009 and the source has At Langebaan Lagoon, where they are most numerous, their numbers declined by 40% between 1975 and 2009, while be linked to the effects of global warming at the breeding grounds is the same in the source and the article.

The cited sources seem reliable to me, and we have a healthy mix of journal articles and books, with few websites. My only concern is that, judging by this, oiseaux.net is user-generated, meaning it probably isn't reliable; we only cite it once, so it should hopefully be easy to replace. We also have a few books without page numbers (eg. Snow; Wells, Round, & Treesucon; and Marchant et al.). It arguably isn't strictly necessary to provide these for GA status, but I'd encourage you to do so, in the interest of WP:V. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added better measurements and replaced the oiseaux.net ref - MPF (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

For 13a (now 12a), it's in "Field Identification:"

In flight, in all plumages, the Curlew Sandpiper has [...] a white rump patch (with reddish barring in some adults)

monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. That's all good, then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

For 16a(now 14a), quoting from Holmes et al., Song.--The song given by the male. I interpreted this as "only the male sings," as does Medrano & Mlodinow 2023: Given only by male monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. That phrase on its own doesn't verify the claim that only males sing; it would be possible, for example, for the following sentence (or another section) to start with "The song given by the female ...". Assuming that Medrano & Mlodinow 2023 are talking there about singing in general, citing them for the statement would work perfectly. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Just done some copyediting; please note the following:

• Per MOS:RETAIN and MOS:TIES, the page was in UK English, not American (e.g. 'moult', not 'molt', 'wader' not 'shorebird', 'hybridise' not 'hybridize', etc.); I've restored this.
• The Humphrey Parkes moult terminology is unknown outside of the USA (and little understood even within it); it should be avoided as incomprehensible jargon at all times (see Moult terminology: Let's make it simpler! Ibis 165: 697-703, 2023), but particularly so in UK-language/related pages. I've removed it, and replaced with standard terminology (but because the H-P stuff is so unintelligible and counter-intuitive, I can't guarantee I've replaced correctly in every instance).
• Small points:
  • Wiki markup like [[Crab|crabs]] isn't necessary; use [[crab]]s.
  • Feeding and diet section: "It mostly eats insects" isn't really true; this only applies significantly in freshwater, particularly on the breeding grounds. In winter, it feeds extensively on tidal mud, wheer marine invertebrates predominate.
  • Red Phalarope really isn't a remotely confusable species; I've removed this from the confusion species lists.

@MSK: ↑ As you queried it, here's my explanation from the other day of why I removed Red Phalarope. Their morphology, structure and behaviour preclude any possibility of confusion :-) - MPF (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

oops, thanks for that. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel @Monkeysmashingkeyboards - I've added a couple of "{clarification needed}" to the Vocal behaviour section:

• The 'chase call', Vaux's Swift is not a suitable comparison; the two are continents apart, and never share the same habitat. Anyone who has heard a Curlew Sandpiper is unlikely to have heard a Vaux's Swift, and vice-versa. A better example needed.
• The 'whine call' similar to 'a plover'. Which plover? Their calls vary greatly from species to species. Needs specification.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Quotes from the source:

Chase note.--This call, given by the male and apparently the female during courtship flights and by the male in aerial territorial chases, consisted of a high-pitched musical twittering, resembling the flight notes of the Vaux Swift (Chaetura vauxi)

Whine note. A strong whine note, delivered singly or slowly in series, was frequently given by the male on the ground or, less frequently, in flight. It was a dear, melodic, ascending whaay, whaay..., plaintive and rather plover-like in quality.

Not really sure how I can change it other than expanding and removing mention of Vaux's swift/plover. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd be inclined to describe the calls ("high-pitched musical twittering", etc.) but without the named comparisons? - MPF (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@MPF do you have a source for the additions you made to similar species? Thanks in advance. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards It's condensed from multiple field guides; I can't put it all down any single source, but it would also look odd (a bit 'overkill') to list all 7 or 8 of them; what's best to do in this event? - MPF (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards - second thoughts; perhaps remove all three identification comparison sections? We don't usually have them on species accounts; some see them as contrary to WP:NOTHOWTO. I have a vague memory of seeing a comment somewhere "wikipedia is not a field guide", though I can't remember where. - MPF (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

From WP:WikiProject Birds:

Most of the bird species articles have a common structure which include various combinations of the following:

• [...]
• Description (often including details on immature plumage, moult, vocalisations, identification, and similar species)
• [...]

monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@MPF you can have multiple sources in a ref, like <ref>source 1 blablalba, source 2 etc....</ref> monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards Thanks! Will do 👍 - MPF (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

(also see Help:Citation merging, it's a lot more helpful.) monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards Ended up doing it experimentally my own way; it seems to have worked - MPF (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The way you've stacked them together looks perfectly fine to me. I do have one minor concern, which is WP:V; generally it would be ideal to have a page range smaller than 135 pages, for example (that's quite a bit to read!). As a more general probe, do all of these sources contain roughly the same information (that is, does each source mention the parts about the ruff, dunlin, and sandpiper), or does each source pertain to a different part of the paragraph? If the latter is the case, splitting the citations into multiple ref tags and allocating them to the pertinent sentences (or phrases) could be a good way to go. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I've read over this paragraph (and fixed up some of the writing). Given the lengthy page ranges, I do have to ask: do these sources explicitly make these comparisons (that is, do the sources state that "it's possible to confuse bird x and y, but they are different in these ways"), or do they simply describe the other birds? – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

One other problem: the distribution map. The breeding and wintering ranges are reasonably accurate and complete; the migration, is definitely not. North Africa is very far from the only place they pause to feed on migration, they also do so pretty much throughout Europe (and probably Asia), mostly coastal but anywhere (including inland) they find a patch of suitable habitat. The Commons Category map of geotagged photos here gives a hint. I can't do anything about the map, as I don't have svg-editing software. For now, I've tagged the migration as "very incomplete". - MPF (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for these helpful comments (I've been travelling the last two days, so am a bit late to the party here!). The technical terminology used in some sections was my main concern with the article, so its removal is a useful step forwards. If the map is incorrect, the best solution would be to replace it; if doing so will be difficult, I think its removal would be also permissible (albeit not ideal) for GA status. If I'm following correctly, the only other outstanding point from your comments is the one about "It mostly eats insects". Given the changes to the prose, I'll strike some of my old comments which are no longer applicable (and probably supply some new ones, in places where content has been added or substantially altered). – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel I'm not really looking forward to making a distribution map since at best I'm an amatur Adobe Illustrator user, but hopefully I'll make a new distribution map by next weekend. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel I've completely remade the range map from scratch, should be much better now. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Wonderful. Assuming MPF has no concerns, that seems good to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel @Monkeysmashingkeyboards Looks pretty good to me, thanks! A lot better than the old one. Though you might be surprised about the Himalaya; they do cross it: look at the location of File:Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) (38763897735).jpg on google maps, satellite view . . . in a valley at 2500 metres altitude, sandwiched between 6 and 7 thousand metre peaks. What a place to go birding!! Perhaps that whole area should be yellow, too 👍 - MPF (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@MPF I'm using the distribution map on Birds of the World, which doesn't highlight the Himalayas, and adding the Himalayas may constitute WP:SYNTH. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've moved these outstanding points down to the bottom, so that they're easier to get to. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• All plumages while in flight have a distinctive white wing stripe along the tips from the greater secondary to the greater primary coverts, along with a large white patch on the rump (near the hind of the bird), occasionally barred with red in some adults. – Per criterion 1a, I'd give a bit of explanation for "greater secondary to the greater primary coverts". We also probably don't need to specify that the rump is "near the hind of the bird".

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Should be fully addressed now, I added an efn and a link explaining what a covert is. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• The curlew sandpiper's plumage varies seasonally; the definitive basic plumage in the Humphrey–Parkes terminology with Howell et al.'s 2003 modification (or non-breeding plumage) has upperparts that are initially greyish and underparts that are white with occasional large grey streaks; however, as feather wear increases, they will both slowly become more brownish. – A few points:
  • In most cases, two semicolons as part of the same sentence won't work grammatically.
  • I'm not really sure something can be "in the x terminology". Would something like "according to the Humphrey–Parkes terminology" or "given by Humphrey and Parkes" work?
  • Not really sure I understand what "(or non-breeding plumage)" means here. It reads as though it's a definition for "Howell et al.'s 2003 modification", which I don't think is what's meant.

     Done, moved to an {{efn}} with an explanation. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Their primaries and secondaries are dusky – I'd give some sort of explanation for "primaries" and "secondaries".

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'll respond here to both points about the words "primary" and "secondary". The note is certainly a step forwards, but we define "primary and secondary coverts" as "the layer of feathers lying on top of the primary and secondary flight feathers, respectively", when the reader probably doesn't know what "primary and secondary flight feathers" are either. It might also be worth considering whether the word "greater" needs explaining here (eg., are "greater primary coverts" different to "primary coverts"?). – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  For this and the one above (Per criterion 1a, I'd give a bit of...), I've adjusted the efn to also explain what the primary and secondary flight feathers are, that should be enough. I've also removed the 2 semicolons in one sentence, along with the 3 outstanding issues below. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've added a line from flight feather to the note; hopefully that's accurate, and I think it gets us across the line here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• They additionally overwinter in coastal South Asia as well as Southeast Asia. – I'd omit "additionally" here.
• consisted of the male lowering the head and neck ... pulling back towards the body, – "his"?
• The curlew sandpiper is a small wader (back up in the "Description" section) – As we removed "wader" from the lead, I'd give it a link here.
• Some tense points: we have "are uncommon", and then "areas were sparse" later in the sentence. Lower down, we have "curlew sandpipers display" and "Territories varied".

  I fixed the entire breeding section, so this and above should be  Done. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's definitely much better now, and the "Breeding" section looks all good. I think there are still some slight inconsistencies in the "Territorial behaviour" section, though: "are uncommon", "Territories varied from", and "Territorial behaviour included". If we're talking about the results of a particular study here (and I think we might be), then explicitly mentioning that might solve things. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  I reworked the "territorial behavior" section, should be a bit better now. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've tweaked things, hopefully without impacting any of the meaning. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, I think we're pretty much finished here. These are the only remaining points I see:

  • The sourcing for "Only males sing". From what you said above, Medrano & Mlodinow 2023 seem to state this, so citing them would probably fix the issue.
  • The CLOP concern in the "Conservation" section. The wording does seem to have changed slightly, but it's still very close.
  • I think some sort of clarity around ref 15 and what the cited sources say would be helpful (this one might not be a question for you).

  I also think it would be ideal to add page numbers in cases where we cite a full book, and to tweak the captions where they go against MOS:NOTE, but these might not be strictly required by the GA criteria, so I think it's alright if they aren't changed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've made some changes to Conservation, hopefully CLOP should be alleviated, and cited "only males sing" to Mlodinow et al. @MPF you can cite disjointed pages, see User:MSK/sandbox. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  @MSK will do! - MPF (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  @MSK @Michael Aurel and done. While doing, I noticed we still have several of the refs are given "ref name=:0" (et seq.); I seem to remember seeing somewhere that this is discouraged (in favour of a first name, or a book acronym, or whatever) to make them more recognisable; I can't remember where I saw it though. I don't mind doing this if wanted - MPF (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'll promote this now. MPF may well be right about the ref names, but this isn't something strictly required by the GA criteria, so I won't hold things up over it. MSK: Thanks very much for your patience here, as this ended up being quite a marathon of a review! Congratulations on the GA. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Curlew sandpiper on autumn migration

• ... that the small curlew sandpiper displays territorial behaviour, chasing intruders away and respecting neighbour territories?

• Source: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/auk/vol81/iss3/9/

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by MSK (talk) and

Michael Aurel, nominated by Adroz2380 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Adroz2380 (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC).

• alt1 ... that the reproductive success of curlew sandpipers (pictured) is strongly related to the number of lemmings?

• alt2 ... that the small curlew sandpiper (pictured) respects neighbour territories when chasing intruders away?

... suggest alt1 based on quote from the article. Victuallers (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Its long enough, its neutral, it has sufficient refs and I and Earwig like it. I found evidence in the article of respecting neighbour territories and .... not. This might be solved by the rephrasing in alt2. I deleted "relatively" as relative to what? The article just says they are small? What do you think? Victuallers (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Victuallers: It's worth noting that Adroz2380 was not the editor who brought the article to GA status, as they've claimed in their nomination. That would be MSK (assuming, of course, that they are not the same person, in which case we would have other problems!). – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Good points, however it might be just a newbie nominator not flagging that they are the nominator and not the prime author. Maybe @Adroz2380: can advise and we can credit @MSK: et al as well. and ... I added an image? Victuallers (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It's currently up for FAC so I'm not sure about the rules for that, I'm otherwise fine with a DYK nom. Also, birds aren't proper nouns (think "the chimpanzee has a banana" or "the crow has a stick") so it should be "curlew sandpiper" instead of Curlew Sandpiper. Cheers!monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks MSK. I think I have corrected the attribution. @Adroz2380: OK? Victuallers (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

all OK, see above, although alt2 and 3 are my improved alt hooks Victuallers (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@MSK:, not something to do with DYK eligiblity, but this will come up if you have nominated it for FA. You have many references which track back to a smaller number of books in your bibiography. That's all good; however, almost all such references do not have page numbers. It took me longer just now to verify the hook fact to the source for that reason. I would suggest adding page numbers to each reference that is back to a book in your bibliography. TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)