Talk:Long-tailed Widowbird/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Samara levine (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • First, the overview at the top provided a strong summary of the article.
thanks!
  • In the Taxonomy section, it would be helpful if you created some links to the genus Euplectes page. Additionally, maybe you could add page links to some of the other birds that are in the same family.
Done
  • In the location and environment section, it is a bit confusing because you say there are three isolated populations, but you name four different locations. Although you speak geographically where they are found, it would be helpful if you additionally included what kind of environments they lived in (i.e. grassland, forest, etc.)
That is covered under habitat, so I re-ordered the sections to flow easier.
  • The morphology section is very thorough. Great job! Perhaps include another photograph (instead of the drawing) of the male birds.
I included a male photo a little bit latter in the article
  • Habitat and Diet section was also very thorough!
Thanks
  • Great job on the Behavior section!
Thanks
  • This article needs sections on the birds' status and on its relationship with humans.
They really don't have a particular relationship with humans, but I added a conservation status section.
  • Overall, looks great! I would say ready for good article status once you add those sections! Samara levine (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
  • There are a few places where there are still "citation needed" tags. If you could address those, that'd be great! Samara levine (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
done
A few additional comments from MeegsC (talk · contribs)
  • Be sure to convert all metric measurements to imperial as well; the {{convert}} is a really handy resource. Check the Red-throated Loon article, if you want an example of it being used.
done
Still a few: egg size, length of tail in "Sexual selection" section, km in "Conservation" section
Sorry about that, now done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobiorower (talkcontribs) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

*Don't use symbols like ">" or "<" in formal writing. Change all of them to words.

done

*Be sure to standardize your capitalization of the bird's name. Per WP:MOS, it's Long-tailed Widowbird. There are a number of places in the article where it's capitalized differently.

done
  • All scientific names (like those of the listed plants) should be italicized.
done
Species look good. Orders (such as Hemiptera) should not be italicized. Only species and genera...
done
  • Combine very short paragraphs. No single sentence paragraphs, please!
done
Still one in the Morphology section
done
  • All book references should have ISBN numbers, and the page number on which the cited fact is found should be indicated. Readers need to be able to verify your information for themselves.
This will take some time for me to track down the books again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobiorower (talkcontribs) 18:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Taxonomy

*This bird wasn't first identified by Pieter Boddaert, it was first described by him. And a wikilink to his article would be appropriate.

done
  • Are there any known subspecies? If so, what are they called, and how are they differentiated?
done
  • What are its closest relatives?
done
  • What does its scientific name mean?
cannot find
  • Is it part of a superspecies? Or has it ever been considered conspecific with another species? If so, these should be mentioned.
has been considered a superspecies, no mention of being conspecific

MeegsC (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Some comments from Atrian (talk · contribs)
  • a range map would help. Even though they are isolated populations a map would show some context for the distance between them.

range map added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danoue92 (talkcontribs) 03:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  • in sex selection, I find it odd that you report the methods of a scientific study. I would rather just see the results of the study summarized.
I cleaned up the sex selection section and added a subsection for the Andersson experiment, since it was an important experiment that helped corroborate Darwin's theories. However, I didn't want to exclude the methods of the study because I felt like these were key to understanding the significance of the experiment. Instead, I divided the section into methods and results paragraphs so the section is easier to read.--Blubird25 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In the conservation section the phrase "thresholds for Vulnerable" is used three times. This is poorly worded and should be addressed. Atrian (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This section has been edited for better wording JSDavis2 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Final comments[edit]

The nominator, reviewer, and primary author (Cobiorower) were all part of a fall-semester course, and none have edited on Wikipedia since December 20, over a month ago. As the new semester began a week ago, it's clear that this article and nomination has been abandoned. Consequently, this article cannot be listed at the time. If someone wishes to work on the previously noted issues—none of the ones noted by Atrian have been addressed, and it's not clear how many are left over from the earlier comments—they are welcome to renominate the article after they've finished. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)