Talk:Great cuckoo-dove/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 09:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Range map?
- Will ask someone else.
- uncommon method of foraging (two instances) – I would call it "uncommon foraging behavior", or is this exactly the formulation of the source?
- Changed.
- on New Guinea (several instances) – I think it has to be "in New Guinea"
- NG is an island, so "on" is more typical I think.
- According to [1], it should be "in" as you are referring to a named island (e.g., "they are common on the island" BUT "they are common in New Guinea"). "In New Guinea" is also much more commonly used (I checked with Google Scholar). Furthermore, you use both versions in the text, so this is inconsistent: it is found on New Guinea and It is fairly common in Papua New Guinea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- PNG is a specific country, so it isn't comparable to just NG. To me, "on Iceland" or "on Madagascar" sounds more natural when we're talking about something that actually occurs on an island, as opposed to that site's example of going somewhere. Compare "The nene is found on Hawaii" with "The nene is found in Hawaii". AryKun (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- "is found in Hawaii" shows me 602,000 hits in a standard Google search. "is found on Hawaii" only returns 20,800 hits. That's a big difference. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I still prefer the way "on" reads. I don't think this is in the MOS, so we aren't compelled to go with the more popular formulation as long as both are grammatically correct, which I believe they are in this case.
- I don't know if that's grammatically correct, but I assume it is. Fine with me, I am promoting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I still prefer the way "on" reads. I don't think this is in the MOS, so we aren't compelled to go with the more popular formulation as long as both are grammatically correct, which I believe they are in this case.
- "is found in Hawaii" shows me 602,000 hits in a standard Google search. "is found on Hawaii" only returns 20,800 hits. That's a big difference. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- PNG is a specific country, so it isn't comparable to just NG. To me, "on Iceland" or "on Madagascar" sounds more natural when we're talking about something that actually occurs on an island, as opposed to that site's example of going somewhere. Compare "The nene is found on Hawaii" with "The nene is found in Hawaii". AryKun (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- According to [1], it should be "in" as you are referring to a named island (e.g., "they are common on the island" BUT "they are common in New Guinea"). "In New Guinea" is also much more commonly used (I checked with Google Scholar). Furthermore, you use both versions in the text, so this is inconsistent: it is found on New Guinea and It is fairly common in Papua New Guinea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- NG is an island, so "on" is more typical I think.
- who referred to the species as Reinwardtoena typica, created the genus Reinwardtoena for it – maybe reformulate by switching these two sentence parts around for better flow.
- Done.
- generic and specific names – better link these --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Linked.
- The slight crest on the back of the head gives it a "big-headed" appearance. – Should it be "A slight crest"?
- Yep, changed.
- Link to xeno-canto?
- Added.
- They are usually located a tree or bush – "in" missing
- Fixed.
- Fledglings begin picking food by themselves 35 days after hatching. – Does that mean they begin picking food by themselves after they learned to fly?
- Yes, I suppose; the obviously can't leave the nest without knowing how to fly, so they have to learn how to forage after that from their parents.
- 4–6 birds per square kilometre – conversion?
- I think this is meant to be a rough estimate rather than a rigorous value; you could convert it and get some sort of ridiculous decimal (10.35–15.54), but that gives a false sense of accuracy. The value could be rounded off, but that's just OR.
- That's all from me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Jens Lallensack, see responses to all above. AryKun (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.