Talk:Brolga/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 01:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, Cwmhiraeth, I'll review this one soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why quote marks are used for the alternate name sin the intro? I haven't seen that before.

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Stately" seems a bit too subjective a term.

• Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Since combination synonyms are mentioned under taxonomy, could be placed in the infobox.

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The renowned ornithologist John Gould had given the species the name Grus australasianus" why did he coin a new name?

• Rephrased this. It was a legacy statement but I found the source was on line which was helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "the iris is yellow or orange" and " The legs and feet are dark grey or black." Is this individual variation, or related to something else?

• Reworded Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• You are not consistent in how you refer to the species in plural. Brolga or Brolgas?

• Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are better pictures that could be used on Commons and Flickr. For example, these two of the head[1][2] are superior to the one in the article.
• The gallery should be removed, it serves no purpose.

• Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Images of the bird in flight or at least with spread wings could be shown.

• I haven't seen one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Seems to be an image of a nest, which might be useful:[3]

• Added Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Gould's drawing would make more sense under taxonomy.

• Done, I had to move the Taxonomy section to avoid sandwiching text. Is that OK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I personally don't see a problem, but above seems to be the usual placement. I think it's ok now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Diet and reproduction are usually subsections under behaviour, not full sections.

• Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The culture section is a short list of trivia, couldn't it be incorporated in the article? The info about the painting seems superfluous. We rarely list every painting an animal is shown in, unless the painting itself is very famous.

• Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is some inconsistency in species name capitalisation.

• Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Too much "ing" in the following sentence, should be rephrased: "The performance begins with a bird picking up some grass and tossing it into the air, catching it in its bill, then progresses to jumping a metre into the air with outstretched wings, then stretching, bowing, walking, calling, and bobbing its head."

• Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "In good habitat" should be suitable, or some such.

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "and are often found in the same area as those of the closely related but slightly larger Sarus Crane" differences are already described elsewhere, is there a reason to do so again?

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "nonfamilial": unrelated instead?

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you for taking on this review. I will work through your list of comments. I was longing to remove the gallery but have only recently started editing the article and did not want to tread on anybody's toes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice, seems all text related issues are fixed. Do you want help with the images? Removing the gallery was a good thing, because it really didn't contribute with anything. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This image[4] seems interesting, I'm not sure what they're doing, are they foraging or collecting nest material? And may this one be displaying?[5] FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The first one is a particularly nice image but I'm unsure precisely what they are doing so a caption would be difficult. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

True. I imagine they wouldn't be eating such material?[6] FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the article is ready, but the last things; there is no indication of why Gould chose a new name? Maybe that could be added later if you find out why. It seems the bird has quite a lot of junior synonyms that are missing from the taxobox, and if the subspecies are considered invalid, they are synonyms too.[7] FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• I see you have added some synonyms. Thank you. The link (7) you give does not work for me. This and this give synonyms but do not mention subspecies.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with regard to Gould but I have changed the wording a bit. In Europe we have the French partridge, the European jackdaw, the Spanish ibex - they are not called by these names by the locals, only by people with a wider perspective who realise their are other partridges, jackdaws and ibexes in different parts of the world. So with the cranes. Gould realised there were others and called these ones Australian cranes. No big deal! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not talking about the common name, but the Linnean binomial he proposed, Grus australasianus. Did he not know it was already named, or was it a specific population he thought was distinct? As for subspecies, I'm referring to the ones already mentioned in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. The taxonomy section was there before I started working on the article and I rather left it thankfully alone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, I see. In any case, it should be good enough for GA, so I'll pass it. But you could try to figure it out before a potential FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: