Talk:Andean cock-of-the-rock/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
}}
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 16:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hiya, first off, it seems weird that the intro is so long, whereas the article has very short sections. It almost look as if the entire article consists of the same amount of text as the intro alone! I'm not sure if the subject is covered comprehensively enough. Do you have any books to summarise from? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Added info I found to the article (but not to the lead). Iainstein (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, but it's still very, very scant. This doesn't seem to be a rare bird, sure there isn't a lot more to write about it? I know GAs don't have to cover everything, but there is a comprehensiveness minimum I'm not sure is met here. I may need a second opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Added info I found to the article (but not to the lead). Iainstein (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps look if you can find something useful here: http://scholar.google.dk/scholar?hl=da&q=Rupicola+peruvianus&btnG=
- Found some stuff.
- Why does the plural version of the name need a sentence in the intro?
- "will feed on insects, amphibians, reptiles, and very rarely will prey on smaller mice." Will > Feeds-preys.
- Done.
- There is not a word on classification under taxonomy.
- "Male Andean Cock-of-the-rock choosing the best position" For what?
- "is widely considered to be the national bird of Peru" Either it is or it isn't, so which is it? FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is.
- "is evaluated as Least Concern despite habitat destruction on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" Despite etc would make more sense in the end of the sentence.
- Moved.
- This page seems to have a lot of information which is not here: http://www.ecology.info/cock-of-the-rock.htm
- Corrected url, it is http://www.ecology.info/cock-of-the-rock-2.htm
- Heh, I meant the other way around, that the link has a lot of info that could be used here as well. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Back in business. I'll probably ask for a second opinion about length, just to make sure. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Now two images are directly parallel under breeding, they should be skewed.
- done
2nd. reviewer's assistance[edit]
- In section "Relationships with humans", there is the categorical assertion it is the national bird of Peru. Lead section waffles on this. This sentence doesn't fit well with the section title. just my 2 centsTurnitinpro (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
My review will briefly cover the 6 GA Criteria. WP:GACR
- Well written
- Reasonably well written. Lead section can be trimmed. eg. feeding can say something like "...feeds on a range of reptiles, insects and preferred fruit.." (no need to go into such detail for the Lead). The 2nd and 3rd paras of the Lead can be trimmed by half / combined into 1.
- I have completed this.
- I have completed this.
- Reasonably well written. Lead section can be trimmed. eg. feeding can say something like "...feeds on a range of reptiles, insects and preferred fruit.." (no need to go into such detail for the Lead). The 2nd and 3rd paras of the Lead can be trimmed by half / combined into 1.
- Verifiable with no original research
- Seems OK. Would suggest you have multiple in-line citations as confirmation/reconfirmation of claims. (Or is there a lack of reliable sources ?). Also I'd like nominator to confirm that there is no cut-n-paste text from references or "closely paraphrased" text as sources like Ridgely and Janni are not linked to an online version.
- Yes, there are only a few reliable resources, as said in the article "It is inconspicous and is very rarely seen" meaning the are less resources. I have gone through the article changing the paraphrasing and can confim there is no cut-and-paste text and are almost certain (I don't have all the sources offhand) there is no close paraphrasing. Iainstein (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, there are only a few reliable resources, as said in the article "It is inconspicous and is very rarely seen" meaning the are less resources. I have gone through the article changing the paraphrasing and can confim there is no cut-and-paste text and are almost certain (I don't have all the sources offhand) there is no close paraphrasing. Iainstein (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seems OK. Would suggest you have multiple in-line citations as confirmation/reconfirmation of claims. (Or is there a lack of reliable sources ?). Also I'd like nominator to confirm that there is no cut-n-paste text from references or "closely paraphrased" text as sources like Ridgely and Janni are not linked to an online version.
- Broad in its coverage
- Neutral
- Seems to be neutral. Hardly any scope for NPOV over here. Is this a controversial topic ? Is there anything of controversy about this bird which deserves to be included ?
- To answer both questions, no.
- To answer both questions, no.
- Seems to be neutral. Hardly any scope for NPOV over here. Is this a controversial topic ? Is there anything of controversy about this bird which deserves to be included ?
- Stable
- Absolutely no issues. I really love the way this article has developed over 6 years with harmonious editing by multiple editors. (toolserver is down so can't check for obvious SOCKing or blocked contributors). This is what Wikipedia is all about.
- Absolutely no issues. I really love the way this article has developed over 6 years with harmonious editing by multiple editors. (toolserver is down so can't check for obvious SOCKing or blocked contributors). This is what Wikipedia is all about.
- Images
- Well illustrated. Must check copyright status though of each image (checks out).
- Well illustrated. Must check copyright status though of each image (checks out).
SUMMARY Looks close to being a Good Article.Turnitinpro (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Now its up to the first reviewer. Suggest you leave a note on his talk page.Turnitinpro (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)