Talk:Rück's blue flycatcher

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rück's blue flycatcher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 17:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, I'll look at this in a bit. AryKun (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Wretchskull: Okay, so this article seems to cover pretty much all that is known about this species, but there is considerable scope to improve the prose.
• The lead could probably be expanded considerably, probably with a short description of the species, where the specimens of the species were collected, and the type of habitat that these specimens inhabited.

Improved. What do you think?

• "the Muscicapidae family" → "the Old World flycatcher family Muscicapidae"
• "due to poor surveying" → Don't think "poor surveying" is the reason, probably more something like "due to the fact that it has not been recorded since 1918"
• "Monsieur Rück" → First name?

This is the only name given by sources

• "were given" → "gave it the"
• Add the meaning of the generic and specific names.

Do you mean I should explain the terms? I linked them in case that is what you want.

• Add alternative common names from Avibase and make redirects for them.
• A. F. C. A. van Heyst → Replace the A. F. C. A. with just his first name.

I assume you want "A. van Heyst"; correct me if I'm wrong

• For it being monotypic, the IOC World Bird List is a better ref than Birds of the World since we use IOc taxonomy on Wikipedia.

IOC does not state Cyornis ruckii as being monotypic. The multitude of refs and info about the bird should be enough to indirectly support the fact that it is monotypic, and the Birds of the World ref simply backs the statement directly.

• "Herbert Christopher Robinson and Cecil Boden Kloss" → the middle names aren't necessary, also add profession and nationality (eg British zoologists/ornithologists)
• "and were eventually accepted as a synonym for C. ruckii" → ", eventually synonymizing C. vanheysti with C. ruckii"
• "being aberrant" → "being an aberrant form
• Always refer to the species by its common name (there's a couple instances of the scientific name being used instead)
• "Differences between the specimens described by Oustalet and Robinson & Kloss exist. It is 17 cm (6.7 in) in length, with a black bill, brown iris and black feet." → "Rück's blue flycatcher is 17 cm (6.7 in) in length, with a black bill, brown iris and black feet. Differences between the specimens described by Oustalet and Robinson & Kloss exist."
• "These differences could be due to both pairs being "two subspecifically different taxa" or simply individual variation" → These differences could be caused by individual variation or due to the specimens being of different subspecies.
• "The flycatcher" → "Rück's blue flycatcher"
• "Most specimens were collected in primary lowland forest. The specimens collected by van Heyst are thought to be from exploited forest, thus showing possible tolerance against habitat degradation." → This is poorly worded, as if there are just 4 specimens, it unlikely that "most" would be collected in primary lowland forest. Perhaps just mention which specimens were collected where instead.

What about now?

• The bit about the 2004 tsunami would be better suited to the Conservation section.
• "The species" → "Rück's blue flycatcher"
• "the flycatcher are" → "the species is"
• "of Threatened Species" is unnecessary and should be removed.
• "and is protected" → "and has been protected"
• "them being specimens of the white-tailed flycatcher" → "them being white-tailed flycatchers"
• Cyornis concretus should be italicized.
• If the Kukila article has a compatible license, you could extract the images of the museum specimens from it and add them to the article.

Thank you for pointing that out!

• Optional: Add taxonomic synonyms to the infobox from Avibase. AryKun (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@AryKun: Done. See my replies. Wretchskull (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Wretchskull: I've done a bit of final copyediting and passed the article, well done on a comprehensive article on a species that very little is known about. AryKun (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)