Talk:Meratus blue flycatcher/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: AryKun (talk · contribs) 09:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 11:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks another interesting article from AryKun and looks likely to be close to meeting the Good Article criteria. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of adequate length, with 1,844 words of readable prose.
• The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 209 words.
• Authorship is 93.2% from the nominator with contributions from 10 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article and a Did you know nomination.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Change "a" to "an" in "a expedition".
   • Consider "from which" rather than "from where" in "which is close to the location from where many type specimens of the species were collected".
   • Consider a comma before "and" in the independent clauses, such as "Some males may have dark blue on the flanks and one individual was seen with a solitary white retrix", "The lores are whitish and the slender eye-ring is buff-yellow", "The head to the nape (back of the neck) is streaked blackish and the nape to the rump is marked with blackish spots" and "It has a very small range and the authors of the study describing it recommended it be assessed as vulnerable".
   • Please review "as well as the less extensive white on the underparts".
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Please add that Kirwan 2022 requires subscription.
   • Spot checks confirm BirdLife International 2022, Irham et al 2022 and Jobling 2010 cover the topic.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 0.1% chance of copyright violation, which is extremely impressive.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article is compliant.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article is compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced and covers potentially controversial aspects like the songbird trade without bias.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images have been reviewed and have appropriate CC tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate. Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.

@AryKun: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)