Talk:Bronx County Bird Club/GA1

GA Review

Passed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 15:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

One sentence paragraphs should be avoided. Just merge the lead into one paragraph, it is short enough.
...with the highest species total for three consecutive years. I have read this sentence a few times and still don't know what it means. Was their group the one that recorded the highest number of species of all other groups? Could you clarify?
Ornithologist should be linked in the lead

Formation

You mention the people who became famous ornithologists in the lead, but don't mention in the body of the article that this happened (you mention all them, but never say they went on to become famous ornithologists

Locations

One sentence paragraphs should be avoided. Just merge the last sentence into the previous paragraph, it is short enough.
A last BCBC meeting was... -> The last BCBC meeting was...

Christmas census

One sentence paragraphs should be avoided. Just merge the last sentence into the previous paragraph, it is short enough.
They observed 35 species in Pelham Bay, Van Cortlandt, and Bronx parks. In the 1923 census, they found 26 species. 1925 yielded 67. In 1926 it was 83, with 87 in 1927 and 93 in 1929. In 1934, the club spotted 97 species, reported to be one more than they had the previous year. By the group's twelfth census in 1935, 107 species were seen. -> The BCBC recorded more species each subsequent census: 26 species in 1923, 67 in 1925, 83 in 1926, 87 in 1927, and 93 in 1929. In 1934, the club spotted 97 species, reported to be one more than they had the previous year. By the group's twelfth census in 1935, 107 species were seen.

Additional reading

The Kastner source should have the date as 1979-04-15 (consistency)
Both sources need |url-access=subscription

References

Refs #4, #14 and #18 should have their date formats match the format used for the rest of the article.
Ref #1 has a spelling error (adn instead of and)
Spot check:
- Ref #1 looks good
- Ref #4 looks good
- Ref #8 looks good
- Ref #13 is basically a quote without quotations. Recommend adding quotes to it, i.e. "four snowy owls feeding on rats", since it is word for word from the source (also, rat doesn't need to be linked, WP:OVERLINK)
- Ref #15 looks good

Images

NA

Nice work RoySmith, putting on hold. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've addressed all of these. RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo fan2007 forgot to ping. RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, one thing I'm unhappy with myself is how to refer to things that members would do in the future, i.e. "would go on to", "would later", "would serve", etc. I don't remember what that tense is called. I think what I've got is grammatically correct, but the repetition sounds awkward. I'd appreciate any suggestions. RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put everything in past tense. See here. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Why the ellipsis in Ref #6?
A last BCBC meeting was held in early 1978 at Fort Myers, Florida. still sounds weird to me. Was it the last? Maybe The last recorded BCBC meeting...?
- RoySmith, the source says The last meeting of the BCBC adjourned after three days. Can you make the change? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't think this sentence needs to be its own paragraph? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ellipsis was in the <title> tag in the original so the citation tool just grabbed it. I've removed that. As for the one-sentence paragraph, I broke it up into two sentences. I guess it could be combined with previous paragraph, but I think that would be slavishly following the MOS to the detriment of the end result. Each paragraph is a topic. These two paragraphs have two different topics. I think it's better to leave it as is. RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, passing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.