Talk:Australian magpie/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi Cas, I seem to be making a lot of comments on bird articles recently, so this review will keep the avian momentum going. Shall I give it the pre-FAC nitpicker's special, or just stick to the GA criteria? :)

I took the liberty of making several changes: increasing the linking to (what I thought were) relevant & helpful terms; minor changes to grammar and prose; formatting the article according to MOS style (i.e. use of ndashes where appropriate, some non-breaking spaces, etc.). In terms of content, the article has everything I would expect to see (I compared with other bird FA's and GA's to make sure). I placed a fact-tag on one sentence I thought could use a citation ("Subsequent studies have revealed this group to be closely related to the woodswallows.". Sasata (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article meets all GA criteria, so I will promote it.... good luck at FAC! Sasata (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is well-written. Article complies with MOS.

P.S. Just noticed this recent paper which could be mentioned in the article if it's headed to FAC: Baker MC. (2009). "Information Content in Chorus Songs of the Group-Living Australian Magpie (Cracticus tibicen dorsalis) in Western Australia". Ethology 115(3): 227–238.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
 * Needs one citation. All citations up to speed. Sasata (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Convers everything I'd expect to see for an bird article at GA-level.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * All images have appropriate free use licenses.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Thanks for the link - will incorporate it. I have added a ref for the first time the cracticids and artamids were linked closely (1985 via DNA). Still waiting on a map for FAC push, and was wanting to hunt down some more photos too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)