Talk:A History of British Birds/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's go

• Lead is a bit short, something on the layout of the work wouldn't come amiss

extended, and described structure of entries and how they are grouped.

• Please check for overlinks, especially of people, also ornithologist

done (with tool support)

• Any reason for not linking bird species, eg Mallard, Smew, Musk Duck, Sabine's Snipe, Great Bustard etc?

linked. "Sabine's Snipe" is now not recognised as a species

• between 2 and 4 — spell out numbers less than ten

done

• link irides to iris, migration to bird migration, genus

done

• several of the links in the contents are wrong (titmouse) or imprecise. Spoonbill, avocet, gannet and ibis (1 sp) and oystercatcher, clearly should be linked to the British species, not the family.

done, but note that Bewick intended all these names to be of groups.

• Grouse link dubious, presumably should be Red or Black Grouse?

"Of the Grouse" means all the British members, viz Red, Black, and Capercaillie, so the link is correct.

• Scolopax and the duck (ref 1) should be italicised, also incorrect italicisation or lack of in refs 8, 30

done

• Collins Bird Guide — there are four credited authors, not just Svensson

done

• ref 23 — 1911?

done

• It would help in the captions if you could frame the original titles in quote marks (or italics), to make it easier to separate his text from your commentary

Set Bewick's captions in double quotes.

Stated (in text) that tail-pieces had no captions.

good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we are nearly there. I fixed a link and a couple of incorrect capitalisations of groups of birds, but I still have two queries regarding capitalisation.

• In your Land Bird/Water Bird headings, what's the logic of the capitalisation of the second word? These don't appear to be closely enough related to Bewick's title to retain his formatting

Oh I see what you mean. The choice is either the full volume title, or WP style: done the latter.

• You say that the tailpieces weren't captioned, so the captions are your own, which is fair enough. However, I can't then see why those in the gallery have excessive (and inconsistent) capitalisation. I assumed they were Bewick's because the "Hunter Precariously Retrieving Duck from River" style looks 19th century Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

removed caps

Fine, just the formalities: 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: