Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Banded broadbill
Add topic
This article is an unpublished pre-print undergoing public peer review organised by the WikiJournal of Science.
It is adapted from the Wikipedia page Banded broadbill. It contains some or all of that page's content licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License and will also be used to update that article after peer review.You can follow its progress through the peer review process at this tracking page.First submitted:
Article text
QID: Q113866335
Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
Anonymous until published. "Banded broadbill". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q113866335.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Andrew Leung 
(handling editor) contact
Alexandre Pedro Selvatti Ferreira Nunes
Kenneth C Welch
Article information
This is the pre-publication public peer review for the article Banded broadbill
Plagiarism check
[edit source]
Pass. Report from WMF copyvios tool: detected identical paragraphs with animalia.bio, however this is not plagirism by the author, since it animalia.bio used text from the Wikipedia article (as stated in animalia.bio's references section). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Peer review 1
[edit source]
Review by Alexandre Pedro Selvatti Ferreira Nunes 
, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Introduction:
- 1st paragraph, 4th line: males and females should be described as virtually or almost in indistinct as males do have lighter foreheads than females (ref. 10)
Description: - undeveloped rictal bristles and feet characteristics worth mentioning as they are in the original description
I've addressed both of these points. AryKun (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Peer review 2
[edit source]
Review by Kenneth Welch , University of Toronto Scarborough, Department of Biological Sciences
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Overall, this is a fairly concise species summary. I do urge the authors to more explicitly and clearly land on the ‘official’ or at least ‘preferred’ taxonomy/nomenclature (and perhaps to most clearly qualify if the descriptions provided apply to both species or just one). I appreciated the authors’ work in collating detailed descriptions of their song and non-vocal behaviour in these birds, from both summarizing citations (e.g. 10) and from primary research articles (e.g. 17). That said, I think there is perhaps an overreliance on summary sources 5 and 10, particularly in the Feeding and Breeding sections. Some select citation of the originally-referenced works may help to further contextualize these “facts”. For example, at the end of the Breeding section, the authors state, “Little is known about the species' hatching and parental care, but parents continue to provide 70–80% of food to young 13 weeks after fledging, reducing to 20–30% by 20 weeks.[5,10]” This wording and the citations would seem to imply that the parental provisioning rates reported represent some kind of average for the species, rather than a single study that may or may not more broadly reflect species behaviour. But directly citing the original article (and by a bit of careful wording), the emphasis on this last sentence can be on the lack of information, except for a single study.
In the abstract, the authors state, “On the mainland, breeding generally occurs during the dry season;” Could they go ahead and add the approximate dates corresponding to the “dry season”. Not every reader may know that offhand.
I appreciate that the author(s) begins their formal introduction of the species with a reference to the year in which the bird was formally described by Europeans (1821). But this is the only date reference offered here. Could the authors add the date for when the common official name was established by the IOU? “Banded broadbill is the official common name designated by the International Ornithologists' Union (IOU).”
I suggest the authors move “It is the type species of the genus Eurylaimus, which was created for it.[1]” to the next paragraph. This is a taxonomic detail and fits better with the rest of the taxonomic discussion. This may also allow the authors to streamline this second paragraph a bit.
The authors mention the restructured taxonomy early in the abstract, but seem a bit inconsistent in the use of the two trees. I’m left confused as to what the consensus/official status is, and whether the rest of the article refers to the new or old taxonomy. Specifically, the authors first (in the Taxonomy and systematic section) introduce a historical taxonomy (featuring 5 subspecies) and then mention a revised taxonomy that splits these 5 subspecies into 2 distinct species. This latter taxonomy seems implicitly to be the ‘official’ one because the authors cite its recent use by the IUCN, but then continue on in the next section (Description) seeming to refer to the historical (5 subspecies) taxonomy. Should they note adopt the newest taxonomy throughout? And should there be a nascent link to the other ‘official species’ on WikiJournal? And can the authors summarize the plumage (or highlight differences) in E. harteri?
“These two species are most closely related to a clade…” what kind of “clade”? Could the authors go ahead and specify?
The phrase, “All the subspecies excluding javanicus are sometimes split as a separate species…” is quite confusing. Perhaps a transition sentence would be useful. It comes right after you have introduced all five recognized subspecies as subspecies. Can you ease the transition with a sentence that conveys that there has been a taxonomic revision (by consensus) in the field? And how does this relate to the occasional use of the “friedmanni” subspecies nomenclature?
“According to this scheme, the nominate subspecies is called the Javan broadbill,[12] and the three subspecies in E. harterti (harterti, brookei, and pallidus) are called the banded broadbill.[13]” These sentences seem to imply that it is the IUCN (references 12 and 13) that made official the new taxonomy, but they were just following the names/species established by Kirwan et al. (10), were they not?
I find the use of “nominate subspecies” in “Adult males of the nominate subspecies…” unnecessary. For clarity, I suggest the authors just use the subspecies nomenclature (like the authors did just above with pallidus). More importantly, why is the description of the adult male based on the older nomenclature (javanicus supspecies) rather than the newer (official) monotypic “E. javanicus”?
“It went locally extinct in Singapore around 1928;” This seems very specific, is there a specific citation to back this up? Or is it gleaned from a general guide?
The end of the distribution paragraph reads, “that the species wanders upon the loss of its usual habitat.” Comes just BEFORE the paragraph actually describing the “usual habitat” occupied by this species. I suggest reordering this so that the usual habitat is introduced first (in the “habitat” subsection).