Talk:Chestnut-hooded laughingthrush/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This looks an interesting article on a bird that does not seem to be very well known, and worthy of being a Good Article. I will complete a review soon. simongraham (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]The article was created by Pvmoutside in July 2012 and has subsequently been edited extensively. 92.9% of current authorship is by AryKun, mainly undertaken un March 2022. It is currently ranked B class and appeared as a DYK on 7 April 2022.
- The article is of appropriate length, 1,258 words of readable prose, plus an infobox.
- The lead is of appropriate length.
- It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
- Citations seem to be thorough.
- References appear to be from reputable sources and none that are dubious according to WP:RSP.
- Spot check (Cibois et al and Cottrell et al) confirms that sources are live and support the arguments in the text.
- Images have appropriate licensing and CC tags.
- There is no clade diagram, but this is not necessary for a Good Article.
- Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 1% chance of copyright violation.
- Text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced perspective.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
Review
[edit]- The lead states "Described by the British ornithologist Richard Bowdler Sharpe in 1879, it was previously considered a subspecies of the chestnut-capped laughingthrush" In the text it states it was after 1883 that this assumption was made. This needs clarifying.
- Tweaked lead. I'm not sure exactly who first treated it as a subspecies (the earliest mention of it as a subspecies I can find is the 1935 handlist by Nutter Chasen, but he doesn't explicitly state that this is a new lump and so it may have been treated as a subspecies earlier), so just used a vaguer "subsequently".
- Thank you. I think that is clearer.
- Tweaked lead. I'm not sure exactly who first treated it as a subspecies (the earliest mention of it as a subspecies I can find is the 1935 handlist by Nutter Chasen, but he doesn't explicitly state that this is a new lump and so it may have been treated as a subspecies earlier), so just used a vaguer "subsequently".
- The word "population" is repeated in the final sentence of the lead. Consider rewording.
- Reworded.
- Consider "moved into the species Garrulax as part of that species" rather than "moved into Garrulax as part of that species".
- Garrulax isn't a species, it's the genus. Reworded to make that clearer.
- Thank you. That is helpful.
- Garrulax isn't a species, it's the genus. Reworded to make that clearer.
- Consider revising the section Taxonomy and systematics. Suggest including the scientific name in the first sentence, an intro built on the first two sentences of the final paragraph, followed by the etymology, then the history, taxonomy and subspecies list.
- The current arrangement is based on chronology and is used on most FA's, so I don't see a need to change it.
- That is a suggestion rather than a GA criteria so I am happy to pass.
- The current arrangement is based on chronology and is used on most FA's, so I don't see a need to change it.
- "also makes a even-pitched series" should be "also makes an even-pitched series"
- Corrected.
@AryKun: I believe that is everything. This is excellent work. Please tell me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- simongraham, I've addressed all the points you raised, could you please take another look? AryKun (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, AryKun. I will now complete the review.
Assessment
[edit]The six good article criteria:
- It is reasonable well written.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- no inline citations are from unreliable sources;
- it contains no original research;
- it contains no obvious copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- It is broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail and employs a summary style).
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- It has a neutral point of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.