Talk:Bonelli's eagle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhillcrane (talk · contribs) do you intend to bring this to FAC? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very detailed, and the list of sources is impressive.
The major remaining problem I see is the language. Especially the lead contains many grammatical flaws; it seems to be a bit better in the remainder of the article. Could you have a closer look at the lead?
For the remainder of the article I sometimes wonder about word usage. You often use the word "rather", but what precisely should this mean and what does it add? Please check each instance of "rather" if it can simply be removed. Example: "a rather monophyletic subfamily".
Same with the word "fairly". I think in most cases it can just be deleted. In the remaining cases there are more precise words, such as "comparatively" and "proportionally".
Another (less common) word is "roughly": The Bonelli's eagle is roughly intermediate in its wing lengths – we don't need that here I think, as "intermediate" only means "in-between" which is nothing precise.
The use of the word "race" seems imprecise, should it be "subspecies" instead?
Check if Wikipedia:Citation overkill might apply here. Too many references behind a sentence are often redundant and also have negative aspects.
The content would be easier to read if more line breaks and sub-sections would be used. For example, I would insert a line break before Bonelli's eagles are mostly residential throughout their range …, as this is now a different topic.
More subsections and line breaks are needed especially for the "Breeding" section, which looks a bit like a wall of text.
Content-wise, the "Taxonomy" section is short compared to the rest of the article, and lacks the early taxonomic history. Who described the species and based on what? Where does the name come from (both the common name and the scientific name)? In which genus and family was it classified originally? How did its classification change over time?
The African hawk-eagle (Aquila spilogaster) was once lumped with the Bonelli's eagle – a bit imprecise; when was this proposed and by who, and was this lumping widely accepted? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandhillcrane: Do you still intend to take this to GA? If so, you'll need to get to Jen's comments soon. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your suggestions were apt and suggested edits were made. What is the next step?

Thanks, I continue, but regarding the amount of detail and the number of sources this might take a while. Need to do this bit by bit. It would help if you would leave a short comment directly under those points you disagree with, so that I see if there is a need to discuss it further.
extremely spotty and sparse – "extreme" is not a suitable word in most cases, I would just remove.
Beyond its African breeding range, the IUCN and others have mapped out – I'm not sure the IUCN is mapping anything, they just summarise the data?

They do map out the ranges of species, which they occasionally update, I believe for Bonelli's an interactive range map is viewable on both BirdLife International and the IUCN red list websites.

Thanks, this is ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 48: Unless I miss something, this species is not even mentioned in that source?

I'm unclear, what's not mentioned in that source?

I mean: what information is this source supposed to support? Bonelli's eagle is not covered by this source as far as I can see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is puzzling as the species is considered largely non-migratory.[1][47][48] – Which source covers the part "this is puzzling"? We need to be careful with WP:SYNTH.

I can reword.

Ok looks better, but now: Which source is supporting the part "although little more is reportedly known about this population and its origins and altogether the species is considered largely non-migratory"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the last two points, this is actually from the Global Raptor Information Network "Mali: An adult was seen in a wooded valley of Adrar des Iforhas (25 km W of Aguelhoc, 19°25'N) in January 2004 (Thiollay 2006). This is the first record of an adult south of the Sahara of a Palearctic species whose adults are usually sedentary, thus raising the possibility that the species may breed in Mali. An immature was recorded at a locality 120 km to the south in August 1973 (Thiollay 1977)." This is combination that the IUCN does not appear to consider Mali and elsewhere in West Africa to be part of the Bonelli's distribution.

Ok, could it be that in ref. 48, you cited the wrong source? Thiollay had more than one paper in 2006. I think this is the correct one: [1]. But still, the Global Raptor Information Network needs to cited directly here as well I think, since it is your first-hand source of information, and contains inferences not covered by the primary sources. In Wikipedia, the references list is by no means meant to give a complete overview over available sources. Instead it allows people to verify the information given in the text. The Global Raptor Network and the IUCN could therefore be the only sources here (and secondary sources are even preferred over primary ones); although it should be ok to cite the primary sources in addition. From experience I can tell that copying citations from other sources without looking them up is usually not a good idea; this can lead to errors very quickly, as citations in sources are often inaccurate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very little information is known about the current status of Bonelli's eagles in northern Africa (with the last survey known of the species in Morocco dating to the mid-1980s), although the trends seen in western Europe may be reflected there as well.[1][5] – I don't see where this information is supported by any of the two sources? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was inferred I believe in Ferguson-Lees & Christie, i.e. the survey from mid-1980s, but can alter the later portion of this sentence.

I have that book and looked it up, but could not find this information inside. Could you double-check if the correct source is cited? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those things that is in the back of my mind as something that had a more specific and supportive reference at the time I was initially working on this. As it stands, I decided to excise the sentence due to lack of supporting references.

OK, just to explain the process: I was asked to evaluate this article against the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The latest comments address Criterion Nr. 2: "Verifiable with no original research". I cannot review all sources given the size of the article, so what I am doing now are spot checks: I access and check only some of the sources to see if they contain the information that they are supposed to support. I found potential issues with the sources of the two sentences I checked (listed above), and those issues are relevant considering Criterion Nr. 2. We need to clarify these now. If the issues are indeed there, I would need to ask you to check all remaining citations for similar issues and correct them. When done, I would do a second spot check, unless I encounter no more show stoppers. Please see my questions above regarding the open points. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack, I think sandhillcrane meant to ping you at their last comment, could you check up on this GAR? Thanks :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just very occupied in RL, will get back to this shortly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updates have been made, could you move onto next stage of the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandhillcrane (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandhillcrane and Jens Lallensack: Just following up on these old reviews to make sure they have not been forgotten. How are we going here? AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandhillcrane and Aircorn: Sorry for the break. This has been a difficult review for me, and I was not sure how to access it. The article is of very high quality content-wise. However, it is much more detailed than almost any other bird article, maybe a bit too much for an encyclopedia, as at this level it becomes difficult to read and review. My major concerns were with the sourcing. I now did additional spot checks but all, at least those I could access, are fine. I still think there are much more citations than necessary. But I think these two potential issues (high level of detail and citation overkill) are no reasons for a fail. I therefore decide to pass the article now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]