Talk:African river martin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review by MMagdalene722

I'll go ahead and review this one, too, since I just passed the River martin article. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

and

I've made some minor copy edits. If you're satisfied with them, I'll go ahead and clear the article for GA. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 14:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The only thing I would add would be a sentence or two in the lead about the bird's status, so that it better reflects the content of the article body.

I've added a sentence to this effect

Alrighty then. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Other comments: I noticed that a lot of the material here is repeated from the River martin article. This is understandable, since the African River Martin is (obviously) a type of River Martin. I also noticed that the White-eyed River Martin is already a GA. I'm not really very experienced as a WP, but is there enough information on each of the two birds not included in the River Martin article to warrant having separate articles for the two species? I just wasn't sure. I'm not really a subject matter or anything

It's policy in all the biology projects to have articles on every species and higher taxon, and for the Bird project, all the species' articles actually exist. As you say, there's bound to be significant overlap, particular for a genus with only two members, but I've tried to put in different material where it's possible. It would be easier to differentiate with a larger grouping, like the 400 tyrant flycatchers, but that's too daunting! 08:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just clarifying. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass/Fail: Pass