Talk:Rock wren

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:Rock wren/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk · contribs) 03:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Always happy to see a bird nominated here. But the major issue here seems to be comprehensiveness. This is an intensively studied bird species with numerous papers published on it, and the article barely references any of that. You cite the Birds of the World (BOW) as a main source; do you have complete access to it and did you look through all the sections and the aspects covered there? It also helps to compare with Cactus wren, for example, to give an impression of where this article could be.

The article also does not seem up-to-date. The BOW source is 2021. Your statement "Little is known about their nesting habits" is misleading at best, since in recent years, several papers just on the breeding biology of this bird have been published (try a Google Scholar search).

The taxonomy section is just a list of subspecies, but nothing on the scientific description of the species, or the meaning of the scientific name (in the BOW, you can click on the little "i" icon next to the scientific name in the title, to get started with this, especially with the etymology). There is also nothing on systematics (relationships with other wrens; a cladogram would be nice, for example), no section "similar species" to describe how it is identified in the field. Are there any differences between male and female? If not, that should be mentioned. How does the juvenile look like and can be identified? How does the nest look like, how large it is? Egg color, pattern, shape? A lot of potential for expansion here.

The lead should be much longer (covering all the aspects discussed in the article).

Other issues

• The map in the infobox needs a caption with color legend.
• "Breeding" and "Distribution" do not belong under "Description", and the habitat info (which lacks a heading) also does not.
• I'm a bit worried that the quotes you provide in the reference templates are too extensive. For example, template:cite web says "When quoting a copyrighted text, only brief quotations to attribute a point of view or idea are permitted; extensive quotations are prohibited". I think that means a few words or a sentence is ok, but not more; I've never seen such blocks of text quoted in the references, so I would be careful, but best to ask elsewhere to make sure how long these are allowed to be precisely.

To conclude, although this is a neat article, it currently fails the "comprehensiveness" criterion by quite a distance, and hence I have to fail for now. I hope that the instructions above are helpful, and I hope to see this article back at GAN soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 1 January 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.

Not a GA review

monkeysmashingkeyboards 980 words is very short for a biology GA when I can find 2000+ papers on Google Scholar. The distribution section is particularly short and seems to rely on the map; the description is also just two short paragraphs, which is, bluntly, way too short for a well-studied species. Northern cardinal § Description is an adequate model, but I'd prefer something as detailed as Black-capped chickadee § Description or, to pick a non-avian example, Northern emerald § Description. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 14:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, where are the taxonomic synonyms? There must be some, because the authority is listed as (Say, 1822) not Say, 1822, but they're missing from the infobox and the basionym (Troglodytes obsoleta) isn't even mentioned in the Taxonomy section. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 14:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Think I've addressed most of the concerns, thanks for bringing them up!

(p.s - large portions of the 2000 papers are largely just atlas entries and field expedition results, since these birds are really common in the areas they're found. Going to a random page and picking some random article titles results in the following:

• Report Upon Ornithological Specimens Collected in the Years 1871, 1872, and 1873
• A Reconnoissance [sic] in Southwestern Texas
• Sequences of song in chaffinches
• Detectability adjusted count models of songbird abundance
• Recent records of land birds from South Farallon Island, California

Which makes the scholarship seem much larger than it actually is, since most of these are brief mentions. keeping this here just for future reference) monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rock wren/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk · contribs) 20:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Independentgeoscience (talk · contribs) 02:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to note that this is my (User:Independentgeoscience's) first GA review. It will not be perfect.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Article is quite readable with a solid flow, however, some minor corrections, such as italicizing the title of the book that describes the rock wren. I do feel that the lead could be maybe a paragraph longer, expanding into depth about behavior especially when you have so much in that section. Finally, the article could be broken up into paragraphs some more to make it flow a little better. Not required of course, but I'd love to see a cladogram depicting the different subspecies, and maybe more images. Final note: on the subspecies, it appears that S. o. obsoletus is repeated.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are cited with appropriate linking, and where needed, passages are provided, ex. Source 1, Thomas Say et. al. All sources properly link at this time.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Generally, yes. Discusses other species and doesn't hyperfixate on rock wren.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Bias is not present, with sources cited for each paragraph and data expressed accurately according to sources cited.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars, subject is not contested.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Awaiting minor corrections, and will approve once complete! Good work!

@Independentgeoscience: I think I've addressed most of the issues you raised - there really isn't anything missing in the lead, though, so I didn't add anything for that. Cheers, and thanks! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I feel quite confident, and happy to promote to a GA. Thank you for editing! Independentgeoscience (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this GA review is not good. Is this article applicable to be GAR'd? User:Chipmunkdavis? ~2026-21530-2 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi 2026-21530-2, if you have specific concerns with the review, please raise them first with the reviewer or discuss this at WT:GAN. In general it is easier to discuss a recent review and adapt if needed, rather than go into a GAR. CMD (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Most of the issue that Jens Lallensack pointed out were not yet addressed, especially the outdated 2021 BOW source and its comprehensiveness. ~2026-20939-6 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Which issue(s)? The 2021 BOW source is only missing a few (2 new articles focused or largely about the rock wren) articles about the rock wren (Salpinctes). The remaining sources are just brief mentions without any detail, or about the New Zealand rock wren. (search query) monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

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 JuniperChill (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A rock wren with a spider in its beak

• ... that rock wrens (pictured) build pavements made of flat stones around their nest to keep nestlings dry?

• Source: https://academic.oup.com/auk/article/132/1/288/5149195

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems: - Possibly flawed GA review might impact eligibility.

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: So let's review over the good parts here first: the article seems suitable for appearance on DYK quality-wise, and the hook is cited and interesting. Image clearly demonstrates the subject as well. An Earwig check only turned up 5.7% likeliness to some sources, based entirely on short bits and pieces, so there doesn't appear to be copyright issues. Doesn't look like a DYK is required either. So it seems good to go in that aspect, but there is one issue: the GA review for the article does not seem like it thoroughly inspected the article, and there is no spotcheck, which is required for reviews nowadays. Because of that, the GAN process was incomplete. Consequentially, I don't know if this article is eligible for DYK. I am requesting additional input on this if possible. λ NegativeMP1 23:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• (lurking WP:TOL editor) Technically, this can be DYK'd, but I agree that the GA review is rather underwhelming. As far as I am aware, there is no formal process besides GAR to repeal an invalid GA review. I will look into what can be done, but the DYKN should be on hold until the validity of the GA status is cleared up. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it fine for me to just contact the reviewer to ask for a re-review? Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll start a GA reassessment soon™. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: GAR is complete! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: if you have time, could you update your DYK review? Thanks in advance. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot about this. Yes, if the article stayed at GAR and got a thorough review, which it did, then there should be no issues. λ NegativeMP1 03:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Rock wren

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep. An editor has reviewed the article and determined that it does, indeed, meet the GA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

As @NegativeMP1 says, this article's GA review might not be entirely valid, so I'm starting a GAR to find out if this is actually GA-level. Cheers! (leave a message on my talk page if you need PDFs of any of the paywalled sources) monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• It looks like a sources spot check was not done? I am happy to take another look. (I am the reviewer of GA1, while the GA review in question is GA2) @Monkeysmashingkeyboards: Would you mind sending me the "Birds of the World" source for the rock wren in a private message? If you have access, you could click on the print view option to have everything on one page, which makes it easier to share. If not possible, the two largest chapters should suffice. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don't have access to my computer right now, but I will try to send ASAP. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

   Done monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Jens

• There are duplicate refs that could be cleaned up (refs 16 and 17, and refs 18 and 20.
• Refs 18 and 20 are a Master's thesis. Per WP:THESIS, master's theses are only considered to be reliable sources if they have been widely cited in the academic literature. Google Scholar shows that it has been cited three times, which is, for a thesis published in 1998, not a lot, so I'm unsure if this requirement is met.
• What's the difference between "song" and "song type"? Are you sure you use the terminology correctly?
• They probe with their bill as their extraction tool – I found this wording awkward. Is it needed at all?
• Rock wrens mainly forage during the day on open ground, scavenging the surface of rocks and soil and probing crevices. – This seems to say that the wrens are scavengers. I cannot find that in the source.
• The Birds of the World source provides population estimates (numbers of individuals), that would be an important information to include, I think.
• "a minimal amount of verticality" – this is an instance of WP:CLOP and should be reformulated.
• Rock wrens are serially monogamous – What does this mean (specifically the serially)? Could you reword or explain in the text to make this more accessible?
• around 3.1 grams in weight – this can't be accurate? Looks like an average value, but the word "average" is missing in that case.
• Nestlings were observed to mainly feed on grasshoppers, along with other insects – Nestlings are fed, right, so to say "feed on" might be confusing. Also, the BOW source mentions spiders, which are not insects. One important question: Is this really a general statement that applies to the species as a whole, or is it a case study that only applies to the birds of western Kansas? If the study is restricted to western Kansas, you cannot generalize to all the other regions (I would be surprised if grasshoppers are the main food everywhere!)

I did spot checks, not an exhaustive check. While there is certainly room for improvement and expansion, and I do think that the above points need to be addressed, there do not seem to be major systematic issues that would indicate that any of the GA criteria is not met. After the above have been addressed, I would vote for "keep". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the concerns, regarding serial monogamy: it links to an explanation of the concept, so I don't think explaining it is necessary. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• within a burst of 10–15 songs – is "song" the right term here? Just asking.
• instead preferring flat rocky areas – I think you got it wrong, the source says the exact opposite: "minimum", not "minimal". The species needs at least some verticality, hence it hates flat areas.
• What about the point with the Master's thesis? Is this really something that cannot be sourced to a reliable source, such as "birds of the world"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout the master's thesis, I replaced the duplicate reference and checked it off in my mind. I think I've addressed the other 2 issues as well, though I'm unsure about "steep" as a description. Cheers, and thank you so much! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I did a suggestion, although I'm not sure about the best wording myself (revert if you don't like it). In any case, I suggest keep. Thanks for the good work! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:03, 17 January 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.

Nestlings

@TechnoSquirrel69 this might be relevant:

Our results indicate that stones can keep Rock Wren nests dry, which is predicted to be beneficial because dry nestlings are most likely to maintain body temperature and fledge (Story et al. 1988).

Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, guess I should've looked a little further down the article! Reverting. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)