Talk:Antbird/GA1

GA Review

1. Intro:antshrikes, antwrens, antvireos, fire-eye, bare-eyes and bushbirds. Don't think that these should be bolded, some at least have articles and should be linked to them
2. Don't need to put (HTML) in refs, since default. Why are doi in small font?
3. exposing white patches on their back feathers or shoulders. unclear, are the white patches bare skin, or is it white feather patches on their backs or shoulders?
4. The family is predominantly found in forests members of the family are... ?
5. taxonomy - some bits lack refs
6. Zimmer, K. & M. Isler - page number(s)
7. PDF links should have (PDF) indication in ref

• Why? It is clear that it is an external link, there is a little Adobe sing next to it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Different species are uniform in colour or at times patterned with barring or spots. reads as if they change their appearance
2. rust underparts rusty? rust-coloured?
3. Dot-winged Antwrens puff out white back patches, whereas Bluish-slate Antshrikes and White-flanked Antwrens the white patch is on the shoulder. word missing?
4. Nether the less one word
5. The distribution of the antbirds is entirely Neotropical, with the vast majority of the species being found in the tropics. tautology?

• No, Neotropics covers the whole of the South American continent. Slightly confusing I conceed.

1. above 2000 m and almost none with ranges above 3000 m. conversions and nbsp needed
2. recated is this a typo?
3. Immaculate Antbirds regularly attend army ant swarms in order to feed, but is not an obligate ant-follower and also forages away from the swarms ungrammatical, and if a sentence, caption should have full stop too
4. An important resource used by some species of antbird, and one from which the family's common name is derived, are
5. divorces between pairs are common, but this is exceptional. I know what you mean, but...
6. 1500 m conversions and nbsp needed
7. Even relatively well known species are poorly known I know what you mean, but...

I picked up a few typos, and there are places where the text is a bit clunky, could do with another careful copyedit. The comments above were from a first read, I'll go through again tomorrow, and also check the refs

The Adobe sign may show in IE, but it doesn't in Firefox, so all the refs look the same to me - and I guess regular Wikipedia editors are disproportionately likely to use Firefox. Doesn't look as if there's a great deal to do now, let me know when you've done jimfbleak (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I use Firefox, and I see them. Curious. Well, I guess I could make it clearer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Nice article. Before going to FAC, just a couple of points

1. "species" occurs a lot, to some extent that's inevitable, but might be worth a read through to see if some variation is possible
2. Barred Antshrike (one of my favourite birds) image seems oddly positioned
3. ref 1 still has a redundant HTML tag, and the doi is fmted differently to ref 2

I'm working on a family level article too (nuthatch, but a bit easier than yours! Good luck, jimfbleak (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)