Talk:Andean cock-of-the-rock/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 16:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Hiya, first off, it seems weird that the intro is so long, whereas the article has very short sections. It almost look as if the entire article consists of the same amount of text as the intro alone! I'm not sure if the subject is covered comprehensively enough. Do you have any books to summarise from? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Added info I found to the article (but not to the lead). Iainstein (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Alright, but it's still very, very scant. This doesn't seem to be a rare bird, sure there isn't a lot more to write about it? I know GAs don't have to cover everything, but there is a comprehensiveness minimum I'm not sure is met here. I may need a second opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not rare but is still rarely seen. I'll try to add as much info as I can find. Iainstein (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Found some more info on range of different subspecies. How is it now? Iainstein (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I asked around, and I'll try to compare this to another encyclopaedic entry on the bird, to see if anything could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Found some stuff.
  • Why does the plural version of the name need a sentence in the intro?
Removed. Iainstein (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "will feed on insects, amphibians, reptiles, and very rarely will prey on smaller mice." Will > Feeds-preys.
  • There is not a word on classification under taxonomy.
Added. Iainstein (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Any cladograms? FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. Iainstein (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Male Andean Cock-of-the-rock choosing the best position" For what?
Lekking. Iainstein (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems to make more sense under breeding then? FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "is widely considered to be the national bird of Peru" Either it is or it isn't, so which is it? FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It is.
  • "and so the species" And so doesn't sound good. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Where is it?
If you hold ctrl and press f, you can search for anything (sentences, words) on a page. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I found it. Turns out on a Mac you do command f to search. Removed.
  • "is evaluated as Least Concern despite habitat destruction on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" Despite etc would make more sense in the end of the sentence.
Corrected url, it is
Heh, I meant the other way around, that the link has a lot of info that could be used here as well. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll add the info I found. Iainstein (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Back in business. I'll probably ask for a second opinion about length, just to make sure. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Now two images are directly parallel under breeding, they should be skewed.

2nd. reviewer's assistance[edit]

  • In section "Relationships with humans", there is the categorical assertion it is the national bird of Peru. Lead section waffles on this. This sentence doesn't fit well with the section title. just my 2 centsTurnitinpro (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. It fits in because humans think of it as a national bird, also that is the section it best fits in. Iainstein (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My review will briefly cover the 6 GA Criteria. WP:GACR

  • Well written
Reasonably well written. Lead section can be trimmed. eg. feeding can say something like "...feeds on a range of reptiles, insects and preferred fruit.." (no need to go into such detail for the Lead). The 2nd and 3rd paras of the Lead can be trimmed by half / combined into 1.
I have completed this.
  • Verifiable with no original research
Seems OK. Would suggest you have multiple in-line citations as confirmation/reconfirmation of claims. (Or is there a lack of reliable sources ?). Also I'd like nominator to confirm that there is no cut-n-paste text from references or "closely paraphrased" text as sources like Ridgely and Janni are not linked to an online version.
Yes, there are only a few reliable resources, as said in the article "It is inconspicous and is very rarely seen" meaning the are less resources. I have gone through the article changing the paraphrasing and can confim there is no cut-and-paste text and are almost certain (I don't have all the sources offhand) there is no close paraphrasing. Iainstein (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Broad in its coverage
Article seems a bit short - lengthwise. But seems to have all bases covered. Text is fairly crisp. "filled with very strange sounds" !! (is this a direct quote ?)
Changed so if it was it is not any more. Iainstein (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral
Seems to be neutral. Hardly any scope for NPOV over here. Is this a controversial topic ? Is there anything of controversy about this bird which deserves to be included ?
To answer both questions, no.
  • Stable
Absolutely no issues. I really love the way this article has developed over 6 years with harmonious editing by multiple editors. (toolserver is down so can't check for obvious SOCKing or blocked contributors). This is what Wikipedia is all about.
  • Images
Well illustrated. Must check copyright status though of each image (checks out).

SUMMARY Looks close to being a Good Article.Turnitinpro (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Now its up to the first reviewer. Suggest you leave a note on his talk page.Turnitinpro (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Images all seem to be valid Flickr photos, so since 2nd reviewer is happy, I'll pass this. Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)