Talk:Cuban macaw/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I always enjoy reading your articles- review to follow. J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's good to be back writing bird articles, I haven't written any articles for quite a few months, hopefully we won't be the last bird writers here after the capitalisation thing... FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I deliberately avoided the discussion- I have considerable sympathy for both possibilities, and understand why people may be upset by the result. Hopefully the whole thing can be put to rest now, and any bad feeling will pass. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead feels a little long for an article of this length. Perhaps you could trim some of the physical description, which feels a little detailed for a lead section?
 * Was the trim by the copy editor enough? FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Native American is preferred, but perhaps "indigenous Cubans" may be preferable? I'm not sure.
 * Changed to Amerindians during CE. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "19 skins of the Cuban macaw still exist in fifteen" Inconsistent numbering
 * Fixed by CE. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Several specimens have also become lost." It's not clear what is meant. Do you mean something like "In addition to the 19 specimens known, several have been lost since the species's extinction."?
 * Replaced "specimens" with "skins", clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "abraded cranium" Jargon
 * > Worn skull? FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "The first known fossil was identified by extrapolating from the size of Cuban macaw skins and bones of extant macaws.[6]" Perhaps this could be mentioned along with the description of the fossil rather than at the end of the paragraph? Or are you not referring to the subfossil?
 * Moved. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "As many as thirteen extinct macaws have at times been suggested to have lived on the Caribbean islands until recently, many of them hypothetical." Very difficult sentence. How about "As many as thirteen now-extinct species of macaw have variously been suggested to have lived on the Caribbean islands." I'm not sure I understand what "many of them hypothetical" means.
 * Changed to your wording, removed hypothetical. Just means that their existence was hypothetical. FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "named by Rothschild in 1905" Can we have a full name and a link?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "The reviewer's objection has not been followed since." What does that mean? (I've also restructured the preceding sentences. Please double-check them!)
 * It means that modern scholars do consider the Liverpool specimen a Cuban macaw. I wrote accepted instead of followed, is it any better? FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "naso-frontal hinge" jargon
 * Should I remove the measurement? No other words for that feature... FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * " which was a hollow in a palm" Presumably, the nest was built in a hollow in a palm, rather than being identical with a hollow in a palm?
 * Fixed by CE. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "One subfossil rostrum was found in a cave, though such are usually not visited by macaws, but the surrounding region was possibly a swamp." This needs rephrasing
 * Rephrased by CE, better? FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "but Bangs and Zappey reported" Full names?
 * Yep, couldn't find Zappey's full name though, only first initials. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "typical of the Zapata Swamp" Do you mean "as in the Zapata Swamp" or something?
 * It is a typical feature of the swamp according to the source, but I guess the area in general is meant... Added area. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just as a general note- I've trimmed some of what seemed to be slightly judgmental language. We're (I suspect) on a similar page concerning the issue, so all the more reason for us to avoid saying things that could be considered non-neutral.
 * Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Parrots are often the first species to be exterminated from a given locality, especially islands." This seems like a pretty wild claim. Could it be backed up a little? Presumably, you mean the first bird species?
 * The source simply says "parrots and their kin are among the first to be exterminated from any given locality, especially when confined to an insular locality." Added "among". FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Caribbean Journal of Science. 3 44: 287–290." What's going on with that reference?
 * 3 is series, 44 is volume. Remove one? FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Some books lack publication locations, some journals lack publishers. Consistency is good. (I'd recommend losing journal publishes- publication locations for books works either way.)
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Greenway, J. C. (1967). Extinct and Vanishing Birds of the World. New York: American Committee for International Wild Life Protection 13" What's the "13"?
 * Removed, it was "special publication no. 13". FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a solid article. I'm yet to check the images, but I can't imagine that they'll be replete with problems! J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I have to hand in stuff for school on Friday, so a bit busy, but I'll answer soon. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as you need; don't worry about it. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The article just received a copy edit I had requested some time ago. It removed some stuff I wanted to keep, but later today I'll re-add that, and fix your points above. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All should be addressed now, not necessarily fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and promote. The article's looking very good, but I'd recommend getting a few more pairs of eyes on it before pursuing FA status, if you intend to. File:Melia azedarach 01434.jpg could do with an English description, but, other than that, images are great. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Are you suggesting peer review? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Peer review can be a bit unreliable. There are a good number of biology editors around who may be happy to take a look through for you- people like Jimfbleak, Casliber, Cwmhiraeth, Ucucha and Chiswick Chap (I'm sure there are others) have all worked on topics more or less like this, so perhaps asking them directly would be good. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)