Talk:Striped honeyeater/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro

• MOS I think is to not wikilink the country name. Queensland and New South Wales though I think should be linked.

Linked the specific regions of Qld and NSW Marj (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• "Molecular studies indicate that genus is closely allied to the monotypic genus Grantiella, though dissimilar in appearance." Needs to be sourced.

Both sentences about Grantiella from the same source. Added another citation.Marj (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The genus name Plectorhyncha is derived from the Greek words for ‘a spear point’ and ‘the bill’ and refers to the fine pointed bill." -What plector and hyncha? Need to indicate which word means which and source this if possible.

My Greek isn't up to the task, I'm limited by the information in the source. Tweaked.Marj (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Molecular analysis has shown honeyeaters to be related to the Pardalotidae (pardalotes), Acanthizidae (Australian warblers, scrubwrens, thornbills, etc.), and the Maluridae (Australian fairy-wrens) in a large Meliphagoidea superfamily." -You already mention molecular studies above. I think you'd be best moving that to the bottom paragraph to avoid repetition and to cover all molecular similarities in one paragraph.

May be more important to keep discussion of the species and the family together. Have removed the Molecular analysis to just say "Honeyeaters are related ..."Marj (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Description

"The song is a pleasant whistling “chirp, chirp, cherry, cherry”, while the contact call is a chirping “chewee” and the alarm call is a shrill whistling note.[2]" A little awkward, maybe When singing the bird whistles “chirp, chirp, cherry, cherry”,. "pleasant" is subjective.

Vocalizations usually described in terms of 'song', 'contact call' and 'alarm call'. "Pleasant", "sharp" and "shrill" are probably all subjective, but I think we can accept that HANZAB is qualified to hold those opinions. Have revised.Marj (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good job. I fixed only one minor thing myself. Needs a lot more research and content though if it is to ever reach FA,♦♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Marj (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)