Talk:Pied butcherbird

Untitled

The photo in fact shows a Grey Butcherbird, d'oh! --Jquarry 03:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree ... moving the image to the Grey Butcherbird article. Brett.donald 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced the image with one of the correct species. The image shows a juvenile bird, so the chest bib is buff, whereas in adults it is black. Brett.donald 19:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, the image of the juvenile still looks more like a Grey than a Pied. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure about that one. Need to check up in the ol' birdbooks...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Casliber, rather than argue about this, can we turn this into a positive contribution? Maybe we should add in the main article that the juveniles of the two species are very similar. That way when one of us is proved "wrong" and the other "right", we will have covered the point. Wot do you think? Old_Wombat (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good to me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've made that change to the text. Taking your suggestion of actually looking at books, the images on page 254 of Simpson and Day 7th Edition are not convincing either way. The narrow, almost non-existent white collar is Grey, the lack of colour on the chest is a Grey, but ... the pattern on the wings is a Pied, the lack of white in front of the eye is Pied as well. Maybe we need a referee? :) Old_Wombat (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A placeholder very wierd but entirely plausible and see this, this, this, this.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pied butcherbird/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 13:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this one, give me a couple of days to go through it. Vanamonde (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

ok cool Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: That's about all I've got for now: solid work as always. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All minor issues addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No issues

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Sources are solid

   C. It contains no original research:

   Everything seems sourced

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool is clear, spotchecks are clear.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Comprehensive

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

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Licenses check out to the best of my abilities

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing shortly, looks good.

Comments

• Feel free to revert my copyediting.

changes look sound Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• How did "Vanga" become "Cracticus"?

Have just spent some time looking but to no avail. It happened quickly as by 1848 Gould had put them in the current genus, but I can't find discussion of where, when or why. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Can't be helped I guess so maybe just say "Gould described the same species as Cracticus... or are we on dodgy ground there?

I've reworded slightly for clarity, since this was the only remaining point. Revert me if necessary, it's not a crucial point.

• Last sentence fragment of paragraph two of "Taxonomy" missing cite.

reffed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Two subspecies are recognised;" you've mentioned more than two: "recognized today"?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• "which became the family Artamidae." Do we know when?

1994. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• "The neck collar is slightly narrower" slightly confused by this: narrower than what?

The neck collar (of the female) is slightly narrower (than that of the male) - shall I include bracketed bits or is it too repetitive? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Clarified myself. Cheers.

• "richer and clearer than the Australian magpie." As written makes it sound like the bird is richer and clearer...

clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Optional suggestion: switch Gould's image into taxonomy (where you mention Gould) and the juvenile's image into description (where you mention juveniles).

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Also optional: Not a fan of one-sentence sections, maybe could be merged into Distribution.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Link or explain Murray valley

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Link or explain sclerophyll forest and mallee scrub

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Link Darwin; I had a mental image of the birds running away from old Charles.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• There's a couple of sources with location info and others without

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think the last two refs need a little more info, unless it's impossible to find...

added some parameters Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• "offers portraits of the extreme locations where these avian musicians are found." Bit heavy journalistic voice there...

toned down Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.