Talk:Striped honeyeater/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Intro


 * MOS I think is to not wikilink the country name. Queensland and New South Wales though I think should be linked.
 * Linked the specific regions of Qld and NSW Marj (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Taxonomy


 * "Molecular studies indicate that genus is closely allied to the monotypic genus Grantiella, though dissimilar in appearance." Needs to be sourced.
 * Both sentences about Grantiella from the same source. Added another citation.Marj (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The genus name Plectorhyncha is derived from the Greek words for ‘a spear point’ and ‘the bill’ and refers to the fine pointed bill." -What plector and hyncha? Need to indicate which word means which and source this if possible.
 * My Greek isn't up to the task, I'm limited by the information in the source. Tweaked.Marj (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Molecular analysis has shown honeyeaters to be related to the Pardalotidae (pardalotes), Acanthizidae (Australian warblers, scrubwrens, thornbills, etc.), and the Maluridae (Australian fairy-wrens) in a large Meliphagoidea superfamily." -You already mention molecular studies above. I think you'd be best moving that to the bottom paragraph to avoid repetition and to cover all molecular similarities in one paragraph.
 * May be more important to keep discussion of the species and the family together. Have removed the Molecular analysis to just say "Honeyeaters are related ..."Marj (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Description

"The song is a pleasant whistling “chirp, chirp, cherry, cherry”, while the contact call is a chirping “chewee” and the alarm call is a shrill whistling note.[2]" A little awkward, maybe When singing the bird whistles “chirp, chirp, cherry, cherry”,. "pleasant" is subjective.
 * Vocalizations usually described in terms of 'song', 'contact call' and 'alarm call'. "Pleasant", "sharp" and "shrill" are probably all subjective, but I think we can accept that HANZAB is qualified to hold those opinions. Have revised.Marj (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Good job. I fixed only one minor thing myself. Needs a lot more research and content though if it is to ever reach FA,♦♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Marj (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)