Talk:Black-throated blue warbler/GA1
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for Good Article status. I'll go through and copyedit as I go - please revert any changes I make which accidentally change the meaning. I will jot questions below (if you don't understand any wiki-jargon I use, just ask! :)): Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- You generally put the reference at the end of the text referenced. So is the last sentence of the second para of Taxonomy and Phylogeny section derived from footnote 4 too?
- Yes, it is.
Any information on its closest relatives within Setophaga? This could be added to the Taxonomy and Phylogeny section. Think about wikilinking more obscure, specific or complex terms, such as "phylogenetic", "subspecies","coniferous-deciduous woodlands", states, cities or geographical features. Can "eastern islands" be linked anywhere? Try to rewrite as singular where possible to avoid flipping between singular and plural. Like this Fix the  tags. See how you can do duplicate links to same ref? This is especially significant as it is an open-nesting species - can you add why? More  tags (sorry, should have tagged them before...) The left testicle is most often times larger in size than the right one, - a number missing....
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?: (see comments at end)
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Pass or Fail: - some of the sources could do with wording a little more distant from the sourcing, which I did, and be careful that wording doesn't synthesise ideas not in sourcing, but other sources I spot-checked looked ok. Furthermore, some sources in the commented-out further reading section are worth exploring if this article were to be improved for FAC, but overall it qualifies for GA status now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)