Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Black-and-red broadbill

WikiJournal Preprints
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review

Submit

Authors

Reviewers

Editors

About

Journals

Journals

WikiJournal of Medicine

WikiJournal of Science

WikiJournal of Humanities

WikiJournal of PPB

WikiJournal Preprints

More resources

More resources

Articles in review

---

Editorial guidelines
Ethics statement
Bylaws
Indexing
Financials and reports
1-year/3-year plan
Proposed platform
Meeting minutes
Calendar

---

Contact

WikiJournal User Group is a publishing group of open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journals. <seo title=" Wikiversity Journal User Group, WikiJournal Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>

<meta name='citation_doi' value='10.15347/WJS/2024.003'>

First submitted: 9 Jun 2022
Accepted: 5 Apr 2024
Article text

---

PDF: Download
DOI: 10.15347/WJS/2024.003
QID: Q112943149
XML: Download

---

Share article
 Email |  Facebook |  Twitter |  LinkedIn |  Mendeley |  ResearchGate

Suggested citation format:
Aryan Kunkekar (5 April 2024). "Black-and-red broadbill". WikiJournal Preprints 7 (1): 3. doi:10.15347/WJS/2024.003. Wikidata Q112943149. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/b/b4/Black_and_Red_Broadbill.pdf. 

Citation metrics
AltMetrics
Page views on Wikipedia

Wikipedia: This work is adapted from the Wikipedia article Black-and-red broadbill (CC BY-SA). Content has also subsequently been used to update that same Wikipedia article Black-and-red broadbill.

License: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.

Editors:

Andrew Leung contact

Reviewers: (comments)

Alexandre Pedro Selvatti Ferreira Nunes
Scott Thomson

---

Article information

Submitting author: Aryan Kunkekar
Additional contributors: Wikipedia community

See author information ▼

 

Plagiarism check

Pass. Report from WMF copyvios tool: 0% plagiarism detected. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

First peer review

Review by Alexandre Pedro Selvatti Ferreira Nunes , Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
These assessment comments were submitted on 12 Jan 2023, and refer to this previous version of the article

Introduction

• Suggestion: replace "maroon neck band" to "marron half-collar including the auricular region" (ref. 11: Kirwan, del Hoyo et al. Birds of the World)
• Suggestion: replace "white bars on the wing" by "elongated white scapulars form a straight white stripe over wing at rest" or simply "white stripe on dorsal part of the wing at rest" if a simpler characterisation is preferred in that part of the text (ref. 11: Kirwan, del Hoyo et al. Birds of the World)

Taxonomy and systematics

• 1st paragraph, 4th line suggestion: macrorhynchos means large/broad bill, not long-billed
• Subspecies macrorhynchos and putative tenebrosus could be briefly differentiated from the others, which are briefly characterized.

Description

• Conspicuous rictal bristles present at base of bill, as in original description
• Suggestion to replace "tongue large and fleshy to help" with "tongue large and fleshy helps" or "aids" food manipulation.

Response

• Amended neck-band to "half-collar covering the auricular regions".
• Amended to "white scapulars that form a white stripe on the wings at rest"
• Helm Dictionary gives macrorhynchos as meaning long-billed ("Gr. makrorrhunkhos long-billed").
• The description of macrorhynchos is given in description. Tenebrosus is putative and has been synonymized with the nominate due to a lack of consistent differences in appearance, so I don't think adding information about this would be appropriate.
• Added information about bristles.
• Reworded the part about the tongue.AryKun (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 23:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Second peer review

Review by Scott Andrew Thomson , Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
These assessment comments were submitted on 23 Nov 2023, and refer to this previous version of the article

• Taxonomy and Systematics 2nd paragraph " in the Asian broadbill" change to Asiatic
• Taxonomy and Systematics 2nd paragraph "Based on a 2017 study by the Brazilian researcher Alexandre Selvatti and colleagues" - using what methodology, briefly, ie based on molecular evidence, morphology both etc. From the Journal I assume it was a molecular study, but mtDNA nuDNA total evidence.
• Phylogeny - you mention 9 species but only 8 are in the phylogeny which one is missing.
• IOC is there contrasting opinions from Birdlife or other bird lists, particularly at subspecies level.
• Figure 1, identify the sex of this individual since it has dimorphism.
• Under vocalization is there evidence of male vs female advertisment calls?
• Distribution and Habitat - "It can adapt quite well to disturbed habitat" suggest the following "The species adapts well to disturbed habitat"
• In the last section the issue with IUCN using a different taxonomy, they use Birdlife Int. and there are a couple of other competing lists. Hence my point earlier that under taxonomy these issues should be commented on.

Response

• Changed to "typical broadbill" instead (IOC name instead of Clements).
• mtDNA and nuDNA.
• Added footnote.
• Added information on BirdlIfe's contrasting taxonomy.
• Dimorphism is limited to size, which can't be accurately gauged from the photo.
• Not that I can find.
• Done. AryKun (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Faendalimas, any other comments? AryKun (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Faendalimas. The author has completed his revision. Can you take a look at his submission and advise if the revised version addressed your concerns? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: Any update on this? AryKun (discuss • contribs) 08:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I have reminded him via email. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I am good with the responses to my review, I was following some of the other recommendations from the community review see how that panned out, its been busy on Ombuds over holiday season so sorry for that also. From my perspective I recommend publication at this point. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 05:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: Reminder about this. AryKun (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies as I was travelling to remote location for work. Thank you for the reminder. I will present this article to the editorial board for publication consideration. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited, any further update on this? AryKun (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting about this. I have sent your manuscript to the board today. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited, any further updates? AryKun (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. I am pleased to inform you that the article has been accepted for publication. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Community comment

Wikispecies contributor MPF mentioned that "names should follow IOC format & orthography (i.e., Black-and-red Broadbill, not black-and-red broadbill)" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Also that, following conventions relevant to the region, spellings should follow Commonwealth English usage (e.g., colour), not American - MPF (discuss • contribs) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @MPF: on using IOC in the article, my point on taxonomy was only to comment on alternatives in other checklists not to change the name here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The end sentence of the first paragraph in the Taxonomy and systematics section is very poorly written:

• "Black-and-red broadbill" has been designated the official common name by the International Ornithologists' Union.[6] Other names include black-red broadbill, black and white broadbill,[7] and (in the Kelantan province) burong tĕrajan.[8]

I'd suggest something more like (names from wikidata and relevant wikipedias; see sources there):

• The International Ornithologists' Union has designated Black-and-red Broadbill as the standard English name;[6] other English names include black-red broadbill and black and white broadbill.[7] Names in the species' native area include นกพญาปากกว้างท้องแดง in Thai, Sempur-hujan sungai in Indonesian, Mỏ rộng đen đỏ in Vietnamese, and Takau rakit and burong tĕrajan in Malay (the latter in Kelantan province[8]).

The first sentence of the following paragraph:

• The black-and-red broadbill is the only species in the genus Cymbirhynchus, in the typical broadbill family Eurylamidae, a family of ten tropical species native to Southeast Asia.

can also be cited to IOC, rather than the lower-quality (often outdated, and potentially US-POV biased) ITIS reference currently cited.

Also, the archive reference citation for IOC should be updated to the most recent version (v13.2), rather than to v4.2. MPF (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll respond to all the points raised above here:

• Capitalisation and English variety are stylistic issues and should be left to the author's preference.
• Tweaked the common names para; I couldn't find a reference for the Vietnamese names and that WP doesn't seem to cite their name either, so haven't mentioned that.
• Replaced ITIS with IOC and updated archive url (as a side note, how can a taxonomy be US-biased?).

AryKun (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! On English, presumably it should follow WP:ENGVAR, which specifies usage should be relevant to the area concerned. ITIS is not just a taxonomy; it is also a database with other associated data like vernacular names, and that can be (and often is) biased against peoples from outside of the USA (treating non-US peoples as ignorami who are not competent to name their own native flora and fauna). - MPF (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

English is actually in American since I wrote in that originally; I don't really care about the variety used so anyone who wants can change it, but I don't really feel like changing it is worth the effort for me. AryKun (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Our stylistic guide (if there is even one) is silent on the variety of English being used. Wikiversity has a proposal that whatever dialect of English can be used as long as it is consistent (emphasis on the proposal part, it hasn't been adopted). Since the WikiJournal page started as an import of en.wp page, ENGVAR issue should be taken to the en.wp's article talk page because it's not a policy here. I have no issue with either British vs. American English being used in WikiJournal, though I would prefer to seeing Southeast Asian English because that is the language used where this bird species is most prominently found, and Southeast Asian English is closer to British English than American English. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited and MPF: changed all spellings to Brit Eng; I'm not sure, but I don't think the spellings differ between British and Southeast Asian English. AryKun (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@AryKun Thank you. Do you have any further changes that need to be made? Or is your paper ready in its current state? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's ready, unless the peer-reviewers have any further comments. AryKun (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@AryKun: Forgot to add, the Vietnamese name is from Vietnamese wikipedia Mỏ rộng đen đỏ - MPF (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Added the Vietnamese name since Avibase has it. AryKun (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Images

The article here is almost entirely illustrated with photos of the Malay Peninsula subspecies C. m. malaccensis. I've located some more free cc-licensed images on iNaturalist of the nominate subspecies and added them to Commons; File:Cymbirhynchus macrorhynchos macrorhynchos, Jalan Fabia, Sandakan, Sabah 1.jpg -3, and File:Cymbirhynchus macrorhynchos macrorhynchos, Kinabatangan River, Sabah 1.jpg - 2. Some of these could be added here now. Ideally, I'd suggest that the lead image should be of the nominate subspecies. - MPF (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@MPF: Those two images are significantly worse in terms of quality than the image currently used, and the bird in the second photo seems to have some mild leucism on the face. Also, the article isn't entirely illustrated with photos of malaccensis; there's currently 1 of malaccensis, 2 of macrorhynchos, and 1 of siamensis (added now, replacing an older photo of malaccensis). AryKun (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)