Talk:Broad-billed parrot/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maky (talk · contribs) 04:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's only fitting that since I just posted a GAN about a recently extinct animal from a nearby island that I perform this review. I will try to finish my review tonight. If not, look for it tomorrow. – Maky ^« talk » 04:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC) P.S. - Since I know you would be interested, I plan to write the Megaladapis article next.

Comments:

• The description box is needed for File:Latania loddigesii seeds.jpg, and I find it odd that you use File:Gelderland1601-1603 Lophopsittacus mauritianus.jpg (instead of File:Lophopsittacus.jpg) in the infobox when it's labeled as possibly obsolete and is lower quality than the color restoration. (Yes, I realize the color is probably off.. but that could be noted in the caption.) In fact, if you swapped the color one for the 1601 illustration, it would put the 1601 illustration precisely in the section where it's discussed.
• Be sure to use a non-breaking space when you abbreviate the genus.
• I suggest putting "Cockatoo" in parentheses after "Cacatoes" to clarify.
• I'm not sure the "Etymology" subsection is properly labeled. It seems to talk about identification or discovery, with only one sentence dedicated to etymology. It may just need a new subheading.

Otherwise, everything looked good on my first pass. I'll try to review the publicly available sources tomorrow. – Maky ^« talk » 06:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The online sources are limited, but all check out. AGF on the others. Once the points above are addressed, I'll make a quick 2nd pass and make sure everything's okay. – Maky ^« talk » 15:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and I'm looking forward to Megaladapis. I have fixed a couple of things, but I have some questions. What is a description box? Not sure what you mean by non-breaking space. Is the new title for the etymology section alright? As for swapping the images, the 1601 image does not actually contain any inaccuracies (it is labelled possibly obsolete due to being an unaltered "original" page, not because of the drawing, all unaltered pages from the journal are), it is the most correct image known, but it has been misinterpreted over the years (see Hume, 2003, 2007). The 1907 colour restoration actually has many serious inaccuracies other than the colour which makes me quite hesitant to put it in the infobox. It makes the wings too short, head too small, lacks the flattened skull roof, the beak is too gracile, the tail has the wrong shape, and even the crest is too long. This is perhaps because it is a fourth generation copy, the black and white interpretation of a tracing of the original sketch shown further down (which has many of the same faults, the two look more alike than either looks like the original sketch) was actually the most widely circulated image of the bird in the 19th century. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The description box (or information box) I was referring to was this. And this is a non-breaking space: basically a space that doesn't allow the line to end—it would carry the "L." to the next line with what follows it. This is good for scientific names, numbers with units, and any other case where information would be hard to follow without what immediately follows it. It looks like it was already done for the two measurements in the article.

As for the photos, your explanation above is good. Has anyone else critiqued this photo in the same way? If the photo is known to have inaccuracies, it would be good to point this out in the caption and explain it in the text (with a source). It's just best to be clear, since most readers will just skim the article and look at the pictures and their captions. Anyway, this isn't required for GA, but you are a skilled artist... have you considered making your own restoration to fix these problems? That might be perfect for the taxobox at the top. – Maky ^« talk » 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you meant on Commons, I thought you meant in the article itself. Thanks for fixing those issues, I'll consider them when writing articles from now on. The Gönvold image is not mentioned in any sources I know of, but the illustration based on a tracing is. So adding such critique might be considered original research. As for an original restoration, I might make one, perhaps if I try to get it to FA or something (though there isn't much more info about the bird available). FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries—sorry I wasn't more clear. Also, good point on the OR. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with refining this further and pushing for FA. Some FAs are short. As long as it's comprehensive and meets all the other criteria, that's all that matters. – Maky ^« talk » 00:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

Good job. I left some comments above. – Maky ^« talk » 23:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)