There are a few points where the article uses some specific descriptive words in common with the sources, but I think it is acceptable reuse of technically terms, and does not justify quotes.
"It requires shade and a deep layer of leaves from its habitat and is not found in parts of the spiny forest without it." Something seems wrong with this sentence, either it needs a copyedit, or needs to better explain what it is saying.
would it be clearer to say "and a deep layer of leaves in its habitat" or something similar? Done
"dimorphism" technical term, WP:LEAD generally advises against specialized terminology in the lead; if you want to keep it it at least needs a wikilink and/or an explanation. Done
"birds continue living in family groups for an unknown period of time" Just wanted to check on this one, is the period of time identified as being unknown within the scientific community, or do we just not have that information? Done Clarified
Taxonomy
The flow between sentences in this section seems a bit broken. Some of the sentences are straight statements of fact without any real transition. I don't think it is an issue at the GA quality level, but there is room for improvement. (Not a GA Issue)
Description
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, is that a description of all juveniles, or just female juveniles? Done
Distribution and habitat
MOS generally advises against starting a section with an image floating left. In light of the locations of the other images, I think the placement is reasonable, and I'm not going to object, but I wanted to mention it. (Not a GA issue) Done
"however, the species is extremely uncommon it its habitat at densities of about 0.008 to 0.1 per 10,000 square metres (110,000 sq ft).[7]" This portion of the sentence needs a copy edit. Done
Ecology and behavior
"Outside of the breeding season this is a solitary species" Is it correct to use "this" here? I think there needs to be a better transition between discussing how individuals act, and discussing the traits of the species. Done
"After the young fledge, it still lives in a family group of four to five birds for an unknown period of time before the family disperses.[9]" the young fledge is plural, while the following pronoun is singular. Done
Relationship with humans
"This bird has [been] featured on several of Madagascar's stamps." Needs a copy edit. Done
External Links
Both external links seem more like general references then normal external links Done
Images
File:Spiny Forest Ifaty Madagascar.jpg contains a link to the site it came from, but the site does not appear to contain reuse permission, and the image lacks an OTRS tag establishing permission. It seems likely that the uploader does own the copyright, but I think it needs to be better documented. The picture is useful to the article, so ideally the uploader/source site should be contacted and a request made for permission/evidence of permission.
I'll be in the spiny forest around Ifaty in about a week, and will try to get a good habitat pic or two while I'm there, just in case permission isn't forthcoming from the above source. Unfortunately, I'll probably be out of internet contact for at least another week after that, but will try to get one posted asap. MeegsC | Talk20:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox caption, and the last caption should be expanded Done
Citations
Citation 5-d does not appear to contain the assertion that the bird is otherwise silent, only saying it is vocal during the breeding season. I'm not overly familiar with the method used by a source like this; does the fact that the source lists only vocalization during the breeding season necessarily mean that the bird is otherwise silent? Done
I have not completed reviewing the article, so I may have some additional suggestions/comments. I should be able to finish reviewing later today. Monty84516:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing this article. I believe I've addressed all of your above concerns except for the image permission and Taxonomy section, which I'll work out later (running out of free time). Could you check on my changes, particularly the copyediting? The scientific community does not know how long family groups stay together after breeding, or if they know it is a recent and most likely unpublished discovery. New external links were added as well. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished checking the references, everything seems in order there. There is one GA item I have left a further comment on for the lead, I've marked the other suggestions done. Once that is resolved, the only remaining GA issue is the image. I can mark the review on hold for as long as you want if you would like to try and sort out the permission issue. If the image were removed, the article would still have adequate images for a GA, but I think the image adds to the article, and it would be better if it the resolution to the issue wasn't to just remove it. Monty84519:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The lead tweak was done, and I'll look at taxonomy soonish. I'm looking into the picture, and would like to leave the GAN open until the picture is confirmed or a picture replaces it. Incidentally, another picture that the user uploaded, of Yunnan rice fields, has been featured. Images and their permissions are not my strongsuit, but is there anything with this, as a Featured Picture, that proves ownership? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my look at the featured image discussion it does not look like it was promoted. I don't see any specific discussion about whether the image was adequately licensed, and my impression is we have significantly tightened our standards since then for good/featured content. That said, I may be interpreting the rules more strictly then they are intended to be. If you would like to request input from a copyright expert, for instance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, I will defer to their opinion on the matter. Monty84522:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this version failed its FPC, but another user edited it and uploaded it as a different picture (linked to in the file) that did indeed pass. Drafting an email to the website's owner as I type. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got a reply a couple of days ago, in which the website owner didn't outright say that they posted the image but seemed to know what I was talking about and didn't express outright confusion. I sent the draft OTRS email back and have not heard from them since. Do you know what the turnaround time is for OTRSs? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been on hold for almost a month now, any progress on either resolving the issue, or finding an alternative image? Monty84522:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not received an email from the photographer since the one mentioned above. If s/he did send in a OTRS, I do not know how to confirm it other than to wait for someone to add a note to the photograph. I'll check if MeegsC is back from Madagascar yet. Also, if necessary, the picture could be removed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer went inactive, so I double-checked the last issue on the image. Given the myriad of images the user has posted, including featured ones that seem to check out copyright-wise, I don't have any concerns about the image, though OTRS proof is always beneficial. I'm actually going to pass this as is, though if you're looking at FAC, the image would need to be taken care of beforehand. WizardmanOperation Big Bear14:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Done
