Talk:Sulu bleeding-heart/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice article, but here are the nitpicks
 * You use a mix of AE and BE, make consistent
 * I'm guessing Philippine articles are supposed to be in AE. I didn't abbreviated centimeter, which I fixed. Anything else in BE? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the point of repeating the same ref after consecutive sentences? Seems OTT
 * Primarily a writing thing. I go through articles source by source, and want to be able to edit paragraphs knowing what is feeding into each sentence. Barring rediscovery, I don't think much is going to change, so I'll trim a few. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This species is known from two specimens—known only?
 * Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * worth noting that the specimens were from Tataan, not the main island (Gibbs p401)?
 * Was in Taxonomy, through it into Conservation too. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Link or explain primary forest, secondary forests, canopy, mantle, ethnobiological, scapula, iridescence, primary and greater coverts, secondaries, undertail-covert, iris, extirpated
 * Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * with diffusion at the edges—with diffuse edges?
 * Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Little is known about its behavior as the species has not been definitively reported since its 1891 —pretty much repeats second sentence of lead
 * Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * revealed that the bleeding-heart was common until the 1970s and still survives on small islets near Tawi-Tawi.  — ????
 * Not sure what you mean here. The surveys reported that the bleeding-heart was somehow common until the 1970s and was just missed whenever biologists ventured to the area, and that after the 1970s it still persisted on offshore islets. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As such, it is...—For this reason...
 * Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Date of Jolo sighting?
 * Not sure. It was early, but I'm not finding the specific date. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Some authors place the Sulu Bleeding-heart—eg?
 * Not sure. Google turns up only references that say some authors, but that it is better as an allospecies, and Gibbs doesn't specify either. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * no known subspecies.[2] It is also known as—two "known"s
 * Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The bill... It is between 25 and 27—very long bill!
 * Oops. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In "Description" perhaps explain how it can be distinguished from other species, such as sympatric Emerald Dove or escapes of other bleeding-hearts, as per Gibbs?
 * Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 50/fifty—one or the other
 * Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Cambridge, UK—Only ref with a country. My personal practice now is only to give the town, since otherwise you either get inconsistency or ridiculous things like "London, UK"
 * Fair enough. Cambridge is fairly well known anyways. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be away for four days in the next six, so no rush,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Thanks for doing this review. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the Jolo bit based on this, which you should probably add as a ref. OK, let's assess  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:
 * Thanks. I'll add the ref when I get the chance. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)