Talk:White wagtail/GA2

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

Reviewer: Enwebb (talk · contribs) 02:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments

 * Copyvio check shows no copyvio, only hit was to a Wiki mirror site
 * The Latin genus name originally meant "little mover", but certain medieval writers thought it meant "wag-tail" Who are the medieval writers? You could also break down the term into its parts (from Latin x meaning x and y meaning y) but that's personal preference
 * You have white wagtail's closest relatives appear to be followed up with a cyt b study that is contradictory. What's the "appear to be" based on, morphology? It would be good to state that explicitly. "Based on morphology, the white wagtail's closest relatives appear to be..."
 * nice job explaining linked concepts in text
 * I think you need some section reorganization. You have a "subspecies" subsection but then two of the subspecies are singled out to have their own sections. Why are these two subspecies singled out? It is not intuitive for them to not be included under the "subspecies" section.
 * Nine or eleven subspecies are currently recognised what's responsible for the discrepancy? Who says which number? It would be nice if you said, "because some researchers consider x subspecies synonymous with this one, and x subspecies as a full species" or whatever the case may be
 * Make sure scientific names are consistently italicized (a few instances of this in the body and photo captions)
 * Some of your paragraphs and sections end without a citation
 * Avoid phrasing such as A recent study in favor of "A 2006 study" or the like. Recent is a relative term.
 * flies in the order Diptera this is redundant, as "Diptera" is synonymous with "fly". You don't mention insect orders for the other prey taxa, you can probably just say "flies" here.
 * However, they are used in collections and as pets and food this is unclear. Used in collections? Do you mean "threatened by scientific collecting"? Or "collected for use as pets and food"?
 * Instead of the phrase Scientists theorise in the breeding section, it might be preferable to attribute the hypothesis in text (Smith et al. hypothesized that...)
 * The status and conservation sections should be merged, as they are dealing with a very similar subject matter and overlap in their contents
 * You could add to the lead so that it summarizes more content from the body, as it's fairly short and doesn't include content from some sections

That's what I have for the first round of comments! Good work so far, this shouldn't take long to do. Enwebb (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will start doing this. Thanks, Qwerty number1 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)!


 * Inconsistent formatting here They have featured on Bahrain, Belarusian, Belgium, Finnish,Georgian, British, Hong Kong, Hungary, Icelandic, Iranian, Irish, Israeli, Jersey, Kuwaitian, Latvian, Norwegian, Vietnamese and Polish stamp. Don't mix and match adjectives (Polish, Israeli, Icelandic) with nouns (Belgium, Hong Kong). You could say, they have been featured on stamps for the following countries: and then list the names of the countries.
 * I've added some citation needed tags to paragraphs that end with uncited information
 * You have bare URL refs, which are prone to link rot. Add more information with a citation template like Template:Cite web or Template:Cite journal.
 * Replace reference 4 with another source, such as a Latin/English dictionary
 * M. a. ocularis is the only one in the subspecies box without notes--it would be nice if you could describe it here, since there doesn't seem to be an available picture to use.
 * A bit nit-picky, but if you are going to say "Some studies have suggested the existence of only two groups : the alboides group, with M. a. alboides, M. a. leucopsis and M. a. personata; and the alba group, with M. a. alba, M. a. yarrellii, M. a. baicalensis, M. a. ocularis, M. a. lugens, and M. a. subpersonata", then you should have more than one citation at the end for the multiple "studies" you're referring to. Otherwise, just say "One study suggested..."
 * However, they are caught for sport and often then placed into collections and are kept as pets and eaten as food too many conjunctions. You could use a serial comma, a semicolon, or multiple, separate sentences instead.
 * A drive by comment, galleries are discouraged if they serve no specific purpose (images should instead be placed in appropriate sections). Looking here, it seems the images in the gallery are largely redundant anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria
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:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nicely done!
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nicely done!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nicely done!