Talk:Nauru reed warbler/GA1

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oof, this will be like the apprentice teaching his master! The article looks good, and I have a few suggestions that could be taken or left. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First, in search of an image, I found the original description, which could be cited: There are a few things that are not mentioned here, for example who the species was named after, which could maybe bolster the taxonomy section. Also since the article seems a bit short on references.
 * Added a couple of quick cites- I'd rather not rely too heavily on such an old article, but I've got a solid description from a much more recent sources anyway. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On that note, seems it was named in 1883, not 1885 as the taxobox says. Also confirmed by Birdlife.
 * You're right. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You could add the synonym parameter to the taxobox for Calamoherpe rehsei and the subspecies combinations?
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't the "to" redundant here? "darkening towards to the tip."
 * Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the following sentence will confuse the general reader: "When recognised as a species, it is considered monotypic." Perhaps clarify that means there are no subspecies?
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise, this sentence in the intro may be hard to swallow for the uninitiated: "Although no details of infrageneric placement are known"
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The placement of "variously" seems a little odd to me here: "There are reports variously of eggs in December and July" Does it mean that the reports disagree?
 * Rejigged- clearer? J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the last S be removed here? "local to the species's range". On the other hand, I found this, so I'm not sure.
 * Both are acceptable, but I certainly prefer my way- The world  species'  is ambiguous- to me, that means "it belongs not to one specie, but to many species", as opposed to "it belongs to this one species". J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Phosphate mining in Nauru could be linked when it is mentioned.
 * Done- good find! J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's all from me, though I really want to find an image of the bird. I'll add it if I do. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Damn, seems we were only two years away from this image being in the public domain! FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this stamp could be used: I'm not sure what the date is, though. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strike that, seems it's from 1976. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a good hard look for an image, but to no avail; it's something that may crop up in time, but I won't hold my breath! If we can find a Wikipedian in Nauru, I gather they're like sparrows over there... J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review- I'm particularly excited about the original description, which I searched for but somehow managed to miss. I'll be sure to go through that closely. I'll get to your comments at some point in the next couple of days. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, for a potential FA, maybe permission should be asked for a picture somewhere... FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thanks for your careful review. I do think that this one may have FA potential, but there a few little bits I want to work on first- trying to get hold of an image is certainly one of them! J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)