Talk:Martinique macaw/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to review this article and will start doing so shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, a competent, well-written article. Some points, mostly on the prose:

"... actually blue-and-yellow macaws (Ara ararauna). Ara erythrura, another blue and yellow macaw ..." - It is unsatisfactory ending the first sentence with a scientific name and starting the next with another one. The full stop in between is difficult to detect.

"The Martinique amazon (Amazona martinicana) of the same island, was described under similar circumstances." - Can you explain this a bit more fully?

"A 1626 painting by Roelant Savery shows a blue and yellow macaw alongside a dodo, which is different from the mainland bird in having yellow undertail covert feathers instead of blue, but its origin is unknown." - This sentence is a bit confusing, both as to whether the macaw or the dodo is being referred to and as to what is being described as unknown?

"It is considered the same as the Martinique macaw today, if either has ever existed." - Its not clear what "It" refers to in this sentence.

"... on these islands mention distinct, endemic species, ..." - Perhaps "refer to" would be better.

"... they could have been escaped individuals ..." - Does this "they" refer to the "historical records" mentioned earlier in the sentence?

"As many as thirteen extinct macaws have at times been suggested to have lived on the islands until recently." - This sentence is confusing.

Fossils too young to be fully mineralised, is the wikilink not enough? FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thepoints i raised above have been resolved. Reading through the article again I saw:

"It is unlikely that it will ever be known what Bouton actually saw." - This might be better phrased as "Exactly what Boulton was describing is likely to remain a mystery".

"Ara erythrura is considered the same as the Martinique macaw today, if either has ever existed." - How about "If either bird ever existed, Ara erythrura is likely to be identical to the Martinique macaw.

On my screen, the text is pinched between the dodo image and the tazobox, and the single word "description" appears below the dodo image as the only part of the text not sandwiched between the two. You might consider moving the dodo image.

Not to me, we may have set different thumbnail/text size settings, or different screen types...

The caption "Unidentified parrot supposedly from Jamaica, which may be this bird" could state "Martinique macaw" rather than "this bird".

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article is stable.
The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]