Talk:Choiseul pigeon/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 14:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
'Comments
- I'm not sure what variety of English is being used (behavior/grey). As per varieties of English policy, it should be in BE, since that is the official language of the only islands in which it occurred.
- I switched the greys to grays (Wikipedia has ruined me with this word; I never can remember which is AE). I don't have a problem with it being in BE, but don't feel confident in translating it without missing something and leaving it a mixture. I think it is currently all AE: is there an easy way (script perhaps) to turn it to BE? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- six skins- three male and three female- — hyphens should be mdashes
- peoples of Choiseul called the species either "kumku-peka" or "kukuru-ni-lua," — the language being?
- The source didn't specify the name of the language, and there are at least four on the island. I linked to a page on Choiseul languages. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'd link non-migratory, carnivorous, gizzard
- was honored on a stamp — not sure that the right word for an extinct bird, "commemorated" might be better.
- Rothschild ref (#5) is missing a word in title, and shouldn't be fully capped even if it was in the source.
- What word? I think that the article starts with Rothschild's description of the genus, with the species name as a section of the same article. I did lower case and put a "." after gen. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- My error, I was looking at the n sp heading on the next page
- What word? I think that the article starts with Rothschild's description of the genus, with the species name as a section of the same article. I did lower case and put a "." after gen. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I think I've done all of your comments above except for the ones with notes. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've no further comments, but I'm a bit pushed for time so I won't do the image check and formal assessment until tomorrow. Do you want me to translate to BE? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to and have the time, please. Thanks for another good review. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've no further comments, but I'm a bit pushed for time so I won't do the image check and formal assessment until tomorrow. Do you want me to translate to BE? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I think I've done all of your comments above except for the ones with notes. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Thank you! Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)