Talk:Nauru reed warbler

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nauru Reed Warbler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oof, this will be like the apprentice teaching his master! The article looks good, and I have a few suggestions that could be taken or left. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• First, in search of an image, I found the original description, which could be cited:[1][2] There are a few things that are not mentioned here, for example who the species was named after, which could maybe bolster the taxonomy section. Also since the article seems a bit short on references.
  • Added a couple of quick cites- I'd rather not rely too heavily on such an old article, but I've got a solid description from a much more recent sources anyway. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• On that note, seems it was named in 1883, not 1885 as the taxobox says. Also confirmed by Birdlife.[3]
  • You're right. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• You could add the synonym parameter to the taxobox for Calamoherpe rehsei and the subspecies combinations?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Isn't the "to" redundant here? "darkening towards to the tip."
  • Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps the following sentence will confuse the general reader: "When recognised as a species, it is considered monotypic." Perhaps clarify that means there are no subspecies?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Likewise, this sentence in the intro may be hard to swallow for the uninitiated: "Although no details of infrageneric placement are known"
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• The placement of "variously" seems a little odd to me here: "There are reports variously of eggs in December and July" Does it mean that the reports disagree?
  • Rejigged- clearer? J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the last S be removed here? "local to the species's range". On the other hand, I found this[4], so I'm not sure.
  • Both are acceptable, but I certainly prefer my way- The world species' is ambiguous- to me, that means "it belongs not to one specie, but to many species", as opposed to "it belongs to this one species". J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Phosphate mining in Nauru could be linked when it is mentioned.
  • Done- good find! J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• That's all from me, though I really want to find an image of the bird. I'll add it if I do. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Damn, seems we were only two years away from this image[5] being in the public domain![6] FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this stamp could be used:[7] I'm not sure what the date is, though. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Strike that, seems it's from 1976. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a good hard look for an image, but to no avail; it's something that may crop up in time, but I won't hold my breath! If we can find a Wikipedian in Nauru, I gather they're like sparrows over there... J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review- I'm particularly excited about the original description, which I searched for but somehow managed to miss. I'll be sure to go through that closely. I'll get to your comments at some point in the next couple of days. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good now, for a potential FA, maybe permission should be asked for a picture somewhere... FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

Thanks for your careful review. I do think that this one may have FA potential, but there a few little bits I want to work on first- trying to get hold of an image is certainly one of them! J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

photo

Yes, this article really needs a picture of its subject, as opposed to once-considered-same-species from elsewhere. There's even a picture of one on the $1.50 stamp series, so surely there are a number of non-copyrighted pix out there. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There are stamps, yes, but who says they're non-copyrighted? FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've not been able to find any evidence that Nauru stamps are PD. I've spoken with Donald Buden, but he didn't have a photograph. He put me in touch with someone who had some, but she didn't send me one. No one who hasn't visited Nauru will have a picture, while I suspect that people from Nauru wouldn't have any reason to take a picture! I agree that it would be really valuable to have a picture, but I've not been able to get one, sadly. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to all the contributors

Wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)