Jump to content

Talk:Krüper's nuthatch/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 23:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty good, but could still use some work. I may update this list later, but what immediately sticks out:

Original review

[edit]
  • The phylogenic tree is really messing up the layout the way it is.
In my view it looks fine. Other GA nuthatch/bird articles has the same layout, unless you have other idea how to position it other way (but I think this is totally fine).
  • Adding an image of a related species will confuse people who are just skimming, especially when there are so few photos anyway.
Removed
  • The description section is awkwardly written. For instance (emphasis mine): "The eye is surrounded by a thin white eye ring, and the iris is dark cinnamon or brown. Iris dark cinammon or brown; the bill is dark horn-grey; the upper mandible cutting edge at the base is blue-grey, as is the entire lower mandible base."
Reworded
  • Some of the "Description" section would work better in "Taxonomy."
Moved the first sentence of the third paragraph into taxonomy
  • The third paragraph of "Distribution and habitat" is filled with excessive numerical measurements that might overwhelm casual readers.
I guess, removed all the converted measurements.
  • It feels a little short overall. I can't quite put my finger on what it's missing, but add whatever extra information you can find.
Added more [1]. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:55D4:B319:F667:254F (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional

[edit]
Reworded
Replaced
Removed duplinks, the lead shouldn't probably be included in this case.
Replaced everything into "gray".
I don't see any issues, shouldn't the birds name like "Kruper's", "Eurasian" and "European", including the scientific name like "Chloris" and "Gallurus" I think supposedly be all capitalized? 180.194.127.148 (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry about being blind. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded
It was vague either way. I just ended up removing it.
Not stated at the source.

There's potential, but I would address these things first. I'll comment on your updates or point out new issues if I have a chance. As I'm not quite done examining and reviewing, all new critiques not found in the original review will be grouped separately and signed.

Update 1: Good job fixing the issues. I guess the phylogenic tree image is okay. I would recommend moving the illustration to somewhere else, though, as I think it would look slightly better. I also bolded the words "dark horn-grey" in that long quote above because I'm not entirely sure what "horn-grey" is. I can't work on this for a while, but in the meantime, I'm happy to let other editors suggest improvements. I hope I won't be too long before I can conclusively finish the review. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, moved the illustration image at the right side. I uploaded the book page file here at workupload, it really shows "dark horn-grey" including the iris thing. Okay, if you think you are unable to finish the review, perhaps request a second reviewer. Many thanks. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:55D4:B319:F667:254F (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will be able to finish the review, it just might take a little while. For now, I would recommend paraphrasing some of the description section, since it seems to be almost perfectly copied from the book. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its fine, I can wait anyway. It was only the "the iris is dark cinnamon or brown;[5] the bill is dark horn-gray;" was copied as that sentence looks pretty hard to paraphrase. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:BDE0:3AEB:D9BE:444A (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I've considered it thoroughly and I think it's safe to say this article can now be passed. I've compared it several other listed GAs and can safely say it matches them in quality. Excellent work. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]