Talk:Pied butcherbird/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 13:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this one, give me a couple of days to go through it. Vanamonde (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ok cool Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's about all I've got for now: solid work as always. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * All minor issues addressed
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * No issues
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Sources are solid
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Everything seems sourced
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig's tool is clear, spotchecks are clear.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Comprehensive
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No extraneous material
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Stable.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Licenses check out to the best of my abilities
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Passing shortly, looks good.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Passing shortly, looks good.

Comments

 * Feel free to revert my copyediting.
 * changes look sound Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * How did "Vanga" become "Cracticus"?
 * Have just spent some time looking but to no avail. It happened quickly as by 1848 Gould had put them in the current genus, but I can't find discussion of where, when or why. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't be helped I guess so maybe just say "Gould described the same species as Cracticus... or are we on dodgy ground there?
 * I've reworded slightly for clarity, since this was the only remaining point. Revert me if necessary, it's not a crucial point.


 * Last sentence fragment of paragraph two of "Taxonomy" missing cite.
 * reffed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Two subspecies are recognised;" you've mentioned more than two: "recognized today"?
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "which became the family Artamidae." Do we know when?
 * 1994. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "The neck collar is slightly narrower" slightly confused by this: narrower than what?
 * The neck collar (of the female) is slightly narrower (than that of the male) - shall I include bracketed bits or is it too repetitive? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it. Clarified myself. Cheers.


 * "richer and clearer than the Australian magpie." As written makes it sound like the bird is richer and clearer...
 * clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Optional suggestion: switch Gould's image into taxonomy (where you mention Gould) and the juvenile's image into description (where you mention juveniles).
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Also optional: Not a fan of one-sentence sections, maybe could be merged into Distribution.
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Link or explain Murray valley
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Link or explain sclerophyll forest and mallee scrub
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Link Darwin; I had a mental image of the birds running away from old Charles.
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a couple of sources with location info and others without
 * added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the last two refs need a little more info, unless it's impossible to find...
 * added some parameters Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "offers portraits of the extreme locations where these avian musicians are found." Bit heavy journalistic voice there...
 * toned down Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)