Talk:Green rosella

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Green rosella/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs) 20:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Three sentences will need clarifying before FAC though - a reputation for being apathetic and hence is recommended to be kept in a large aviary of at least 5 m (15 ft) long and to be fed little or no sunflower seeds. - non sequitur, to me it isn't clear why the recommendations follow the initial statement relying on their parents for food for the first fortnight.[27] The nestlings leave the nest four to five weeks - how do the chicks obtain food after the first fortnight? In the lead The green rosella or Tasmanian rosella (Platycercus caledonicus) is endemic to Tasmania and Bass Strait islands. This sentence should say what the green rosella is (a parrot, parakeet or bird, your choice)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	*The lead mentions that the female has a smaller beak, this is not covered or cited in the main text.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	*As noted above, statement in lead needs moving to main text and citing. Otherwise citations look good.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Spotcheck showed only wikipedia mirrors
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comprehensive
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No evidence of edit warring in history
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are appropriately tagged and free to use
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	might be nice to have an image of habitat and distribution map for FAC but passes easily
	7. Overall assessment.	Good stuff

• The apathetic comment refers vulnerability to weight gain, so a large aviary and avoiding high energy seeds. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• I fucked up with the "dependent on parents for two weeks" - meant to be after fledging (must have been late!)
• Map added.
• Bill size added in body and cited.