Talk:Congo serpent eagle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mdk572 (talk · contribs) 06:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Some pre-review comments
 * "This species is found in western and central Africa, stretching" A re-word so that it is not the species doing the stretching?
 * Its a very big bird :). Good call. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "It has been suggested that the Congo Serpent Eagle evolved to mimic ..." Important point but a cumbersome sentence.
 * Let me think on this, as inspiration is evading me. The point that it is a suggestion, not established doctrine, has to be in there. Any suggestions? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you need both "more closely"s?
 * Gone. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "As it is adapted for dense forest, it is not well-adapted for secondary forests and plantations." Is there information available on the specific adaptations?
 * Its eyes are the main one, though I believe that its weird wing and tail length may be helpful. Not sure if I should slip that info into the habitat section. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ecology and behavior - many very short sentences. Can they be combined to improve flow?
 * Is this better? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Goshawk links to a disambig page.
 * Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ISBN for Handbook of the Birds of the World - Volume 2?
 * IBSN is in but doesn't display. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Marj (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for undertaking this review. My notes on your initial suggestions are above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality: Still some paras of short sentences but generally good.
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects: Some additional information could be used to expand sentences if/when available
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc.

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Seth of Rabi has a photo on Flickr, might be willing for it to be used.

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Marj (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing. I'll see if I can get the picture and will try to find a better way of phrasing the mimicry paragraph. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)