Talk:Pitta/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My greatest concern is the phylogeny section, which seems outdated: The high-impact genomic study of Prum et al. 2015 is not discussed (see the supplement of the paper for details on relationships of pittas).
 * The paper by Prum is actually a year older than Selvatti's and anyway came to the same conclusion as to the pittas vis-a-vi their position in relation to the broadbills. I have added it, but continue to place more emphasis on the more recent paper that shed light on the evolutionary history of the suboscines instead of the whole of Aves (but that Prum paper was a good read)
 * Ah right, I misread that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ten years later it was placed in the thrush family – in which genus?
 * I don't know, source doesn't say.
 * Not a critical problem in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Tyranni or suboscines – the synonyms should be given at first mention. Anyways, I would think about using only one of these terms rather than both simultaneously in the article to improve readability.
 * Fixed I think


 * The family's closest relatives have for a long time assumed to be the other suboscine birds – does this indicate that they are no longer regarded as their closest relatives? But this seems still to be the case?
 * I'm not sure it does indicate that.
 * Then, what about "The family's closest relatives are assumed to be the other suboscine birds''? I'm not sure what "have for a long time assumed to be" wants to indicate in this case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * they were assumed, for a long time, and are now known to be. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * green broadbills in the genera – maybe better "of the genera"?
 * replaced


 * syrinx – link to Greek Mythology makes little sense, is there a better article?
 * fixed


 * an oscine bird – as with Tyranni/suboscine birds, I would think about deciding for one term, and not use "passeri" in some parts of the article "oscine bird" in others.
 * Fixed


 * Since the publication of the handbook, further splits have occurred – it does not become clear if the black-crowned pitta is among those that have been splitted.
 * Clarified


 * Erythropitta, originally included six species (but see below) – You state "but see below", but I can't find where I have to look.
 * removed, covered by the species splits section


 * reaching up to 1,300 m (4,300 ft) in Taiwan but at much lower levels in Japan. – some grammatical inconsistency.
 * Fixed


 * parachuting down back down – are both downs needed?
 * Fixed


 * with smaller species laying smaller eggs – in relation to body size, I assume? Should be stated.
 * Fixed


 * 73% of the parental visits of fairy pittas, 63% in rainbow pittas, up to 79% in Gurney's pittas – "of" or "in"?
 * Fixed


 * Otherwise a very nice piece of work. Good to read a bird article again. Thank you. Also did a copy edit for minor stuff I felt confident to resolve immediately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, should have addressed the points. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes. One of the question might still require action (see above), but that does not keep me from promoting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)