Talk:Sulu bleeding-heart/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice article, but here are the nitpicks

• You use a mix of AE and BE, make consistent

I'm guessing Philippine articles are supposed to be in AE. I didn't abbreviated centimeter, which I fixed. Anything else in BE? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• What's the point of repeating the same ref after consecutive sentences? Seems OTT

Primarily a writing thing. I go through articles source by source, and want to be able to edit paragraphs knowing what is feeding into each sentence. Barring rediscovery, I don't think much is going to change, so I'll trim a few. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This species is known from two specimens—known only?

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• worth noting that the specimens were from Tataan, not the main island (Gibbs p401)?

Was in Taxonomy, through it into Conservation too. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Link or explain primary forest, secondary forests, canopy, mantle, ethnobiological, scapula, iridescence, primary and greater coverts, secondaries, undertail-covert, iris, extirpated

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• with diffusion at the edges—with diffuse edges?

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Little is known about its behavior as the species has not been definitively reported since its 1891 —pretty much repeats second sentence of lead

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• revealed that the bleeding-heart was common until the 1970s and still survives on small islets near Tawi-Tawi. — ????

Not sure what you mean here. The surveys reported that the bleeding-heart was somehow common until the 1970s and was just missed whenever biologists ventured to the area, and that after the 1970s it still persisted on offshore islets. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• As such, it is...—For this reason...

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Date of Jolo sighting?

Not sure. It was early, but I'm not finding the specific date. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some authors place the Sulu Bleeding-heart—eg?

Not sure. Google turns up only references that say some authors, but that it is better as an allospecies, and Gibbs doesn't specify either. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• no known subspecies.^[2] It is also known as—two "known"s

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• The bill... It is between 25 and 27—very long bill!

Oops. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• In "Description" perhaps explain how it can be distinguished from other species, such as sympatric Emerald Dove or escapes of other bleeding-hearts, as per Gibbs?

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• 50/fifty—one or the other

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Cambridge, UK—Only ref with a country. My personal practice now is only to give the town, since otherwise you either get inconsistency or ridiculous things like "London, UK"

Fair enough. Cambridge is fairly well known anyways. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be away for four days in the next six, so no rush, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for doing this review. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the Jolo bit based on this, which you should probably add as a ref. OK, let's assess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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:

Thanks. I'll add the ref when I get the chance. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)