Talk:Sandgrouse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will read the article and add some comments as I go along. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Maybe use "extant" instead of "living" in the intro?

No longer relevant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention that only the members of this family are living, which are not? The fossil record, if there is one, seems to have been overlooked in the article. Such info could be added in the taxonomy section.

I have found no reference to there being any extinct species or fossil record. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in that case the articles didn't have to be split, since they have the same content.

The article states it is about the family, but Pteroclidiformes redirects here. So if there is no difference in membership between the two, that's fine, but if there are fossil members, they should be mentioned, and the article should expand its coverage to the order level. Otherwise it might be better to separate the Pteroclidiformes article so you don't have to cover species outside the family.

I have made a new Pteroclidiformes article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be nice to mention how the different species are interrelated, if you can find any info on this. Perhaps a cladogram, if available.

I looked online for information on this topic and couldn't find anything useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, it would be nice to add the name and date for who coined the genus names in the taxobox.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the following sentences in the distribution section? "Members of the genus Syrrhaptes are distinguished by having feathered legs and toes and no hind toe." "Members of the genus Pterocles are characterized by having legs feathered just at the front, unfeathered toes and a rudimentary hind toe raised off the ground." It would probably be better to incorporate them in the description section or in the taxonomy section.

I have moved this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not consistent in wikilinking species names when mentioned in the article, and the ones in the intro are not wikilinked. Words like down and hind toe (hallux) could maybe also be wikilinked, and there are generally a lot of words that could be wikilinked (names of other animals, diet items, places, anatomical features).

I have done some more wikilinking. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a few more relevant images could be added to the article? If there are some that show peculiar physical traits or behaviour (breeding? Juveniles?). It could also be nice to add a range map.

Done. I have added a range map for one species but I am not sure it helps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant more for the family as a whole. But it isn't essential now, could be good for an FA. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image licenses look good, an it is really nice that there are images of all species. The following two could be problematical though, as it does not seem clear who the authors are and when they died.[1][2] As there are alternative images available of those species, this is not much of a problem.

The author issue has now been fixed on Commons.

The rest looks fine, and I can understand if some of my comments can be hard to do anything about, so don't worry if the more obscure issues cannot be solved. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with all the points you raised above, though I failed on the taxonomy/cladogram idea. I have added a little more informtion I came across and a couple of new references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good. Maybe mention what species are in the gregarious picture? And another thing that just struck me, if you can, it would maybe be nice to mention what kind of predators hunt these birds? What is their ecological role? FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the caption. Added some information on predators. The actual predators concerned would be likely to vary across the range of the different species of sandgrouse. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great now! I'll pass this article, but I'll have to look up how I do so first... FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Nice article! FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]