Talk:Delichon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Hi, I've signed up for the review, and should have some comments up in a few days. Should I assume this is FAC-bound (and comment accordingly)?
 * Yes. See my talk page. --Ettrig (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will be especially picky ;) Sasata (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this wouldn't be my first choice for an FA, but the two Asian members of the genus are even less promising, and I've got to get one up to scratch.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I'm going to be away on and off, so responses may not be immediate, but will be addressed eventually.. For some reason this page came up at GA2, despite being first GAN. I've moved it, but let me know if any problems  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced a House martin nav box is needed as well as a Hirundinidae nav box. I presume that the House martin nav box is duplication and that it should be removed. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's strongly advised for GT that there is a navbox linking the articles concerned, which the house martin navbox does, but the Hirundinidae doesn't. I don't think there is any MoS requirement that there cannot be multiple navboxes, and just having the Hirundinidae box suggests there are another 70 articles to be part of the GT! If you feel strongly on this, please raise on the project page for discussion there.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that the Hirundinidae does interlink all of the articles concerned with house martins, so the house martin navbox is duplication. I do not know how you could possibly misunderstand the Hirundinidae navbox to such an extent that you think it does not interlink the house martin articles including the genus article. There are many wikilinks to other pages; "flies", "aphids", and  "birds of prey" are all wikilinked in the introduction and no one is suggesting that all the these artictles should be part of the GT, just because there are wikilinked in the article, and no one would expect all of the wikilinks in the navbox or the taxobox to be part of the GT.  I think that MoS would certainly require that an unnecessary duplication be removed, and I think that the house martin navbox should be removed. I see nothing wrong with entirely different navboxes being shown in an article, but I think navbox duplication is a problem. There certainly is not a single navbox template for the 17 articles fo the GT on the Solar system, or the 5 articles on the GT on the Asteroid belt, or the 8 articles on the Noble gases are in a giant navbox. Where does it say that the GTs should contain a small navbox with just the articles of the GT (or FT) rather than a more comprehensive navbox? If you feel strongly that there should be a small navbox containing just the articles of the topic, then please raise on the project page for discussion there that lots of FTs do not contain small navoboxes. Snowman (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from a first readthrough. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have fiddled with the article, please check
 * Fine, thanks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Despite their flying skills the Delichon martins are sometimes caught by fast-flying birds of prey, and they may also be infected by fleas or internal parasites." first and second half of sentences aren't related, and maybe shouldn't be connected by a comma
 * Split as two sentences


 * "The swallow family consists of" link for swallow family?
 * would go to Hirundinidae, which redirects to swallow, so no point  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * wlink interbreeding
 * Done  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * non-breaking spaces in short form binomials and trinomials
 * done  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * link nominate subspecies, Old World, temperate
 * done  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "breeding in colonies sited under an overhang on a vertical cliff" sited -> situated?
 * done <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "A Polish study of the Common House Martin showed that nests typically contained more than 29 specimens of ectoparasite" species rather than specimens, I presume?
 * Done <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "widespread declines…due to factors including poor weather" Interesting, I did not know that weather was ever blamed for population declines. What kind of weather is "poor" for this genus of birds?
 * Swallows catch insects in flight, so if it's cold or wet there is nothing to eat, ove a few years this could cause a decline . The fact of the decline is supported by BWP too, but neither source elaborates on the reasons more than is in the article.<b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * need accessdates for all ref with external links. Am curious to know why you don't use the "url=" parameter of the citation templates, and instead link directly in the title parameter?
 * I don't think that's correct if the ref is known to be an on-line copy of a "real" book or journal - I've never done it at any GA or FA (in fact I've just removed a couple added by other editors). I think all web-only sites have access dates, let me know if I've missed any. re the url, I don't know either - I've always done it thus, and it's no more effort <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * suggest removing the month from the date parameters where they are present in the refs; I don't think they are needed to help the reader find the source, and consistency of presentation is desirable
 * done, if I haven't missed any <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * should probably remove empty cite template parameters to save a few bytes
 * I tend to leave them in case the bot can complete -removed some though <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * some author initials separate by a spaces, some are not
 * done <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * need publisher for ref 27 (Mullarney et. al.)
 * ??It's there <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for comments, I'll fix what I can in the morning, then I'm away until midweek, I'll sort the rest then <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's all done, probably my last edits for a few days now <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * any idea of lifespans? (n/m, not really necessary for a genus article)
 * does the genus have a type species?
 * I thought that was implicit from the fact that the genus was created for the Nepal House Martin, but it's stated explicitly now <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  13:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Should also be in the taxobox, no? Sasata (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * during a lit search, I see the spelling D. urbica being used as frequently as D. urbicum... any comment?
 * urbica until 2004, due to a misunderstanding of Latin grammar Sangster, George; Collinson, J. Martin; Helbig, Andreas J; Knox, Alan G; Parkin, David T. (2004) "Taxonomic recommendations for British birds: second report" Ibis (2004), 146, pp153–157, mentioned in in article for that species <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  13:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "...Chelidon dasypus by Bonaparte's in 1850" why the " 's "?
 * Illiteracy - fixed now <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  13:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(another read-through)
 * "The swallow family consists of 74 bird species which typically hunt insects in flight." not totally clear whether birds hunt insects that are flying, or if birds are flying while they hunt insects
 * I can't see how to rephrase without repeating flying/flight. Idon't think it's that ambiguous anyway, surely they have to be flying to catch flying insects? <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "As a group, the house martins cannot be confused with any other swallows." Maybe make the statement less definitive, as I'm sure plenty of people could confuse them :)
 * tweaked <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "A species is assessed as subject to varying levels of threat if it has a small, fragmented or declining range, or if the total population is less than 10,000 mature individuals, or numbers have dropped by more than 10% in ten years or with a continuing decline generations." Sentence needs tweaking, sounds run-on, and last part isn't grammatical
 * tweaked <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok Jim, I think I've done what I can. I don't anticipate any major issues at FAC. Hopefully this review will help make it a smoother ride. Sasata (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Well written, easy to read, complies with MoS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c(OR):
 * Well-cited to reliable sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers all the bases expected for a genus article without delving into detail more appropriate for a species article.
 * 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 creative commons licenses.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

It will probably be a month before it goes to FAC, since other commitments will stop me giving it my undivided attention before then, many thanks for your input and very helpful review <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)