Talk:Stresemann's bushcrow/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 12:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC) I will be starting this review in the next few days and would welcome input from others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. The prose and style are now satisfactory.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Layout is satisfactory.
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. Well sourced.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. A small number of sources are used but they seem reliable.
2c. it contains no original research. Not as far as I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Main aspects are covered satisfactorily. It would be good if the article included some assessment from the IUCN as to why it considers the bird is endangered. This now done.
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. Extensive editing work took place in November 2011. Since then, article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Image of bird and distribution map are fine.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Article passes the good article criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

On the whole the article is well written with correct punctuation and grammar. The lead section is less satisfactory and there are several places in it where I feel there is a word such as an "and" or an "a" missing. On the whole, the lead is a fair summary of the contents of the article but it could also mention the bird's conservation status.

In the "Reproduction" section, could you add a wikilink or explain "Allofeeding and allopreening". Also in that section, the dimensions of the nest seem strange. How can it be globular, 30cm long and 60cm in diameter? The sentence which starts "The nest is made out of thorny twigs, which the interior chamber ..." needs attention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)