Talk:Indigo bunting/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Lead

• "The Indigo Bunting is closely related to the Lazuli Bunting, and will hybridize with the Lazuli Bunting where their ranges overlap." I don't know what "hybridize" means, though I can guess. It also links to a disambig page. (changed to "interbreed" and redirect fixed)
• "It was once thought to form a superspecies with the Lazuli Bunting, but this has been disproven by analysis for mitochondrial DNA." Is this vital for the lead? (we can leave that out of the lead...a bit dry)

Taxonomy

• "The Indigo Bunting was originally described as Loxia cyanea by Linnaeus in his 18th century work," Is there any reason for the change of description? (Many taxa change names over the course of time, as new genera are described and relationships are re-examined. I have not seen the full story on the history of name changes for this bird, but that would be on the to-do list for FAC)

• "The Indigo Bunting is closely related to the Lazuli Bunting, and will hybridize with the Lazuli Bunting where their ranges overlap, in the Great Plains." See above
• "According to this sequencing, a bunting radiation occurred between 4.1 and 7.3 Mya." It's possibly me but I don't understand this. Also what sequencing does "this" refer to. (changed to "According to this sequencing, these species diverged between 4.1 and 7.3 million years ago." - could also substitute "split", "separated", or "diversified" for "diverged" (happy to go with whichever verb you reckon fits best as they all mean the same in this context). The sequence is the one mentioned two sentences previously)
  • I'm still unsure what "sequence" refers to. It might be I don't particularly understand the previous sentence. If you're heading for FAC, this may be something to ask an independent editor, or sort at a peer review.
    • Aha, ok I get you now; the sequencing is sort of gene mapping to figure out by molecular analysis what is related to what. I could just replace it with general "study". It seemed self-explanatory to me but then again I read alot of biology stuff. I was not intending to take it to FAC myself, it was just that it was so close to GA and the editor retired, I have tried getting it over the line, using GA as a sort of 'flagged revision' as it were. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Description

• "The wings and tail are black with blue edges. In fall and winter plumage, the male is similar to the female, but often retains some blue feather." Shouldn't this be "blue feathers"? (yes)
• "The immature bird resembles the female in coloring, but may have hints of blue on the tail and shoulders and have darker streaks on the underside." Is the blue hints common to both sexes or just male? (Yes, it is just the immature male. clarified)

Distribution

• "brushy forest edges" should brushy and forest by hyphenated since both are nouns? (Erm, I thought "brushy was an adjective - I wouldn't think of hyphenating them)

Behavior

• "April/May" Is this correct notation per MOS? (ok, reworded)

Breeding

• "These birds are generally monogamous but not always faithful to their partner." Do you have a ref for this or is it covered by ref 18? (covered by ref 18 - thought peppering with the same ref was a bit unsightly but can add it to the sentence if you want)
  • No, it's fine. I was just checking really.
• "It is constructed by the female, and the female cares for the eggs alone as well." I would suggest either splitting this sentence in two or say "by the female, who ..." and rmv "as well". (done)

General

• Lots of sentences start "The Indigo Bunting" I suggest trying to find appropriate alternatives, "The bird...", "The species..."? (I tried to mix it up a little)
  • I think there are more places above, which could do with some interchanging. There's no need to overdo it, but basically, read the article through and think about how much it says "The Indigo Bunting ..." Peanut4 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit to do, but nothing substantial, so I'll leave it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I can deal with these (this GAN will self-destruct in 7 days....and ticking...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good work. A great improvement from the first GA nomination. I'm not sure what your current plans are, but it is of a similar standard other birds articles I've seen which have successfully headed towards FAC. I would however, suggest a peer review before you do so; but otherwise good luck.

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:

   Peanut4 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)