Talk:Nauru reed warbler/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Nauru Reed Warbler/GA1)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by J Milburn in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oof, this will be like the apprentice teaching his master! The article looks good, and I have a few suggestions that could be taken or left. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- First, in search of an image, I found the original description, which could be cited:[1][2] There are a few things that are not mentioned here, for example who the species was named after, which could maybe bolster the taxonomy section. Also since the article seems a bit short on references.
- On that note, seems it was named in 1883, not 1885 as the taxobox says. Also confirmed by Birdlife.[3]
- You could add the synonym parameter to the taxobox for Calamoherpe rehsei and the subspecies combinations?
- Isn't the "to" redundant here? "darkening towards to the tip."
- Perhaps the following sentence will confuse the general reader: "When recognised as a species, it is considered monotypic." Perhaps clarify that means there are no subspecies?
- Likewise, this sentence in the intro may be hard to swallow for the uninitiated: "Although no details of infrageneric placement are known"
- The placement of "variously" seems a little odd to me here: "There are reports variously of eggs in December and July" Does it mean that the reports disagree?
- Shouldn't the last S be removed here? "local to the species's range". On the other hand, I found this[4], so I'm not sure.
- Phosphate mining in Nauru could be linked when it is mentioned.
- That's all from me, though I really want to find an image of the bird. I'll add it if I do. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Damn, seems we were only two years away from this image[5] being in the public domain![6] FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review- I'm particularly excited about the original description, which I searched for but somehow managed to miss. I'll be sure to go through that closely. I'll get to your comments at some point in the next couple of days. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Thanks for your careful review. I do think that this one may have FA potential, but there a few little bits I want to work on first- trying to get hold of an image is certainly one of them! J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)