Talk:Tufted jay/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll make comments below. Please respond to each one with "Done" or other suitable remark.

Comments

• Lead: "crow family" is the usual term.
  • Changed
• Are you using "It is" or "They are/Their" for the species? Please choose one and use it throughout.
  • Switch to They/Their
• "based on a type locality gathered in Mexico" - remove "gathered", I don't suppose they dug up the locality and brought it home.
  • Removed
• Cladogram: is there any geographic pattern to the (sub)clades? If so, it'd be nice to label them with as such ("|label1=Mexico", or whatever).
  • Nothing that fits nicely. I tried with a few and it squishes it up against the infobox.
• "that they are sister species": the cladogram says otherwise. Perhaps "that they are separate species".
  • The source specifically says sister species, but I added a followup sentence to explain the cladogram difference since that was based on an mtDNA study.

• Feeding: no need to use "will" (used repeatedly), e.g. "will forage" -> "forage". No need to use "are known to use", either: -> "use". And delete the "also" (twice).
  • Changed
• "10,000–19,999" - please just say "between 10 and 20 thousand". The same in the lead, where the figures have been rounded differently (and wrongly).
  • Changed

Images

• "depicting an illustration of tufted jay." -> "depicting a tufted jay" or better just delete all of that, as the reader knows this is an article about the species.
  • Removed
• I've removed some stray punctuation in the captions: we only use a dot when it's a whole sentence.

• All the photos and the map are clearly relevant, and plausibly licensed on Commons.

• The photo of the stamp is CC-by-SA, but what is the copyright status of the stamp itself? The stamps of most countries are in copyright.
  • [1] There doesn't seem to be any information on how Mexico handles stamp copywrite. I couldn't find anything through web searches either. I think it's ok to keep for now.
    • It looks like a WP:COPYVIO, so no, we can't proceed to GA with it in the article, until there is evidence that the stamp itself is out of copyright. That would be a "{{PD-Mexico}}" tag over on Commons. I note that Mexico has a 100 years term for copyright to elapse. I've nominated the image for deletion over on Commons. If the powers that be determine that it is in fact PD for some other reason, then of course it can be used anywhere.

Sources

By the way we don't need retrieval dates for books and journal articles, please remove them.

• Retrieval dates are needed when a URL is included, I don't think I have any instances of a book with a retrieval date but if there is could you let me know which one?grungaloo (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ref [3] Dean (a book) needs page number or chapter.
  • Found a link to the actual journal article so changed it to Journal cite. Added pages.
• Ref [4] Haemig needs page nos (81-87).
  • Added
• Ref [5] Hope needs page no.
  • I don't have access to this anymore so I replaced it with the Birds of the World cite.
• Ref [7] Goodwin needs page nos or chapter.
  • Added pages
• Ref [8] Miller needs page no. (128).
  • Added
• Ref [9] Howell needs page no.
  • Same as Hope - couldn't get access to actual book so replaced with BotW cite.
• Ref [13] Berlanga (actually doc has Kennedy first) needs page no. (38), and "Ornithology" is mis-spelt.
  • The recommended cite on the front page lists Berlanga first. Added page number and fixed spelling.

Summary

• Ok, this is good work, there are just a few small fixes, and some page refs to sort out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, I think everything is fixed. grungaloo (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Good work! But the stamp image still needs attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
      • I've removed the image from the article. grungaloo (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2024 (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.