Talk:Whitehead's spiderhunter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy to review this article.

Review comments

A lovely article to read and review.

Lead section/infobox

• Link genus; plumage.
  • Linked.
• lark - 'bark'?
  • Corrected.
• The image, being a work of art, could do with a caption, perhaps "Arachnothera julise, as illustrated in Ibis (volume 5, 1887)".
  • Added caption.

1 Taxonomy and systematics

• If no particular connection exists between the name of the bird and the explorer John Whitehead, more could perhaps be mentioned of him. However, the title of Sharpe’s article of 1887 in Ibis (https://archive.org/details/ibis55brit/page/435/mode/1up?view=theater) suggests Whitehead collected the earliest specimen of the bird.
  • Added the fact that Whitehead collected the type specimens.
• Robert Moyle needs an introduction.
  • Added.

2 Description

• Link plumage.
  • Done.

5 Status

• sufficiently large population – nothing appears to be known about how large this is (see https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22718131/94569006), something that could be mentioned.
  • Don't really see what could be mentioned about this, the population isn't known well enough to estimate its size, which is pretty standard for little-known species.

Apologies for not being clearer, my point is that the article points out that the population is sufficiently large, but has an unknown size. Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the species is little known, to help readers understand why its population size is unknown (yet considered large). Amitchell125 (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

6 References

• Link Richard Bowdler Sharpe.
  • I'd prefer not to, since it deviates from the style adopted in other refs (eg Pam Rasmussen, who also has an article, isn't linked either).
• There is a url available for Boelens (https://archive.org/details/whosebirdmenwome0000beol/page/n1/mode/2up), registration required.
  • Added.

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 27 June to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Amitchell125, I've dealt with all the points you raised. AryKun (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Passing

There's one unresolved issue, but otherwise the article now looks fine. Thanks for your work. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)