Talk:Sulu bleeding-heart
Appearance
![]() | Sulu bleeding-heart has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 4, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Sulu bleeding-heart appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 May 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
DYK nomination
[edit]GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sulu Bleeding-heart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Nice article, but here are the nitpicks
- You use a mix of AE and BE, make consistent
- I'm guessing Philippine articles are supposed to be in AE. I didn't abbreviated centimeter, which I fixed. Anything else in BE? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- What's the point of repeating the same ref after consecutive sentences? Seems OTT
- Primarily a writing thing. I go through articles source by source, and want to be able to edit paragraphs knowing what is feeding into each sentence. Barring rediscovery, I don't think much is going to change, so I'll trim a few. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- This species is known from two specimens—known only?
- worth noting that the specimens were from Tataan, not the main island (Gibbs p401)?
- Was in Taxonomy, through it into Conservation too. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Link or explain primary forest, secondary forests, canopy, mantle, ethnobiological, scapula, iridescence, primary and greater coverts, secondaries, undertail-covert, iris, extirpated
- with diffusion at the edges—with diffuse edges?
- Little is known about its behavior as the species has not been definitively reported since its 1891 —pretty much repeats second sentence of lead
- revealed that the bleeding-heart was common until the 1970s and still survives on small islets near Tawi-Tawi. — ????
- Not sure what you mean here. The surveys reported that the bleeding-heart was somehow common until the 1970s and was just missed whenever biologists ventured to the area, and that after the 1970s it still persisted on offshore islets. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- As such, it is...—For this reason...
- Date of Jolo sighting?
- Not sure. It was early, but I'm not finding the specific date. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Some authors place the Sulu Bleeding-heart—eg?
- Not sure. Google turns up only references that say some authors, but that it is better as an allospecies, and Gibbs doesn't specify either. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- no known subspecies.[2] It is also known as—two "known"s
- The bill... It is between 25 and 27—very long bill!
- Oops. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- In "Description" perhaps explain how it can be distinguished from other species, such as sympatric Emerald Dove or escapes of other bleeding-hearts, as per Gibbs?
- 50/fifty—one or the other
- Cambridge, UK—Only ref with a country. My personal practice now is only to give the town, since otherwise you either get inconsistency or ridiculous things like "London, UK"
- Fair enough. Cambridge is fairly well known anyways. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be away for four days in the next six, so no rush, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Thanks for doing this review. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the Jolo bit based on this, which you should probably add as a ref. OK, let's assess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks. I'll add the ref when I get the chance. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- GA-Class bird articles
- Low-importance bird articles
- Wikipedia requested images of birds
- WikiProject Birds articles
- GA-Class Philippine-related articles
- Mid-importance Philippine-related articles
- WikiProject Philippines articles