Talk:Sumatran green pigeon

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sumatran green pigeon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AryKun (talk · contribs) 09:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 15:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi AryKun! You've been busy I see... I'll grab this review and another. Comments this weekend. Esculenta (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's my review. The article is quite good already; all I really have to offer is some prose tweaks and linking suggestions.

• "pigeon family, Columbidae." comma not needed (meh, stylistic differences; ignore)
  • I actually started adding the commas to avoid the consecutive wikilinked words.
• "First described by Dutch zoologist" -> needs "the", else is false title
  • Done.
• "in 1823, is endemic" missing "it"
  • Done.
• "The Sumatran green pigeon is listed as being of near-threatened" (in Conservation section too)
  • Done.
• link coverts, crown, roosts
  • Done.
• why did Swainson create a new genus and new epithet for the species. Was he unaware of previous taxonomy or did he disagree with it?
  • He doesn't mention any reasons. He might've explained his reasoning somewhere else but I didn't find anything while looking through the literature while writing the article.
• link synonymised
  • Done.
• "importance of anatomical characters" "character" is sort of a jargony term for "trait", which might be a more accessible term (or just link it)
  • Changed to trait.
• (not GA requirement): suggest common name redirect for "yellow-bellied pin-tailed green pigeon"
• "is known as Punai salung" use language template (then it will be automatically italicized so it also covers the recommended MOS:WAW italicization)
  • Done.
• link nape, scapular, coverts, tertials, primaries, secondaries, rufous, lores, cere, iris, fledged, orbital, bill, mandible, maroon, vent
  • Done.
• It's a very minor point, but all sentences in the 3rd paragraph of description noticeably start with "The". A bit of variety would break up the minor monotony.
  • Changed one, I'm kind of struggling to think of changes for the others that don't sound terrible.
• "while the tip is bluish-horn." what does this mean?
  • Horn is a brownish color that's approximately the color of most animal horns (duh). It's used in a lot of ornithological descriptions, I think because it was included in this 70s work that standardised the colors used in descriptions. I'd add a gloss but I can't find a pdf of the original color guide anywhere and it's too vague for me to add a accurate gloss otherwise.
• what variety of English is this (coloration vs. synonymised)
  • British, fixed colouration.
• "may have been visiting the lowlands to feed or may have been escaped captive birds."
  • Done.
• possibly useful links: foraging, communal roosting, parasitised, bird nest, bird egg, protected areas, montane forest
  • Added for communal roosting and foraging, montane forest is already linked, and the other two are overlinks imo.
• "of the species's conservation status" I think most style guides would recommend instead using species' … when the possessive noun is a singular noun ending in "s," the possessive form is typically written with just an apostrophe after the "s" (species') rather than adding an additional "s" (another instance later too)
  • Most do, but ours doesn't ("For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's").
    • Good to know, thanks. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks:

• I checked statements sourced to BirdLife International (2017), Van Balen et al. 2015, Adams et al. 2005, and Gill et al. 2023. No issues noted.
• source Van Balen et al. 2015 could be link here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291945647
• I noticed that BirdLife International (2017) mentions its generation length (4.2 years); this is useful encyclopaedic info, no?
  • I'm not sure where BirdLife pulls these from; I've seen estimates for species that have never had breeding observed either in the wild or captivity, so I think they're just kind of guessing them? Added anyway since ig they know what they're doing.

• Images: the single image in the article is appropriately licensed.

Putting this review on hold to let nominator address minor points above. Esculenta (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Article meets GA criteria, promoting now. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)