Talk:Crescent honeyeater/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

It'd be good if we could have a lead image of a male and one of a female. (Also, why "male" and not "Male" in the caption?)

Added female and capitalised first letter Marj (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"honeyeater family Meliphagidae" honeyeater and Meliphagidae link to the same article

De-linked honeyeater

"Two subspecies are recognised." Perhaps go into this? In fact, considering the length of the article, a lead of only one paragraph seems a little too short

Added "with P. p. halmaturinus restricted in range to Kangaroo Island and the Mount Lofty Ranges in South Australia.", and expanded the lead. Marj (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tea-tree is a dablink

Fixed Marj (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Banding studies" Is there an appropriate link for this?

Linked to Bird ringing Marj (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paras 2 and 3 of "Breeding" both discuss fledglings. Best to consolidate?

Consolidated and re-organised a bit Marj (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correa is a dablink

Fixed Marj (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You abbreviate Mt. Lofty in the second mention, but spell it out in full the first and third times

Spelled in full in all occurrences Marj (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Acacia dealbata" Why do you not link? Don't be scared of redlinks! Also, is "Bondi State Forest" worth linking?

LInked both Marj (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The feeding section feels like it isn't structured that well. Sorry I can't be more specific, but I'd reccomend trying to restructure, especially if you have FAC in mind.

Re-structured, may need ce still Marj (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, had a rejig as well...might try to find some more info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like you never properly discuss predation of the species- it's mentioned in passing in the lead and the breeding section, but surely there's a little more to be said?

Added "The nests of the Crescent Honeyeater are usually low in the shrubs, which makes the birds and their young vulnerable to predation by birds and snakes, however both domestic and feral cats are the most likely to hunt this species" Marj (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference formatting seems odd in a few places:
- "^ BirdLife International (2004). Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus. In: IUCN 2007. (2007) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 10 June 2008" This isn't a very standard format

Re-formatted Marj (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Page numbers seem to be used oddly in refs 3, 4 and 5

formatted now Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Sometimes "Victoria" is abbreviated to "Vic", sometimes not (also, sometimes you cite cities, sometimes nations)

should all be state and unabbreviated now Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds" Italicise? Also, "Birds" as opposed to "birds"?

Aha, the title was in the series parameter, made it look funny so slotted it all into title parameter. Birds capped now Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Some more wikilinks to publishers, authors etc wouldn't hurt

Added, primarily authors Marj (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Most references to journals don't bother with a publisher- "^ Cooper, Roy P. (1960). "The Crescent Honeyeater". Australian Bird Watcher (Melbourne, Vic: Bird Observers Club) 1: 70–76. ISSN 00450316." does

One convention is to give the publisher if it is the mouthpiece of an organisation - don't know where Wikipedia stands on this, but the Melbourne Bird Observers Club is probably not a radical organisation that readers need to be alerted to. Marj (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two columns for the references would probably look a little nicer.
Category:Animals described in 1802? Category:Birds of New South Wales? Category:Birds of Victoria (Australia)?

cats added. miaow Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the base image on File:Crescenthoneyeaterrangemap.png would be good.

It is linked on the commons page to File:Australia map, States.svg - is this what you meant? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, my mistake. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looking very nice- most of what I've said is very minor. Clearly well researched and well written. Sources are reliable, images are free. I made a few small fixes. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you feel you're done with my comments, but don't feel rushed. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all I can, I'll leave it to Cas to sign off Marj (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got everything on the list. I still might rummage around for some extra feeding material to make it flow a bit better but I don't think that precludes a green hot-cross bun (?). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great- I've given the article another couple of look-throughs, and I am happy to promote at this time. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks (was gonna say something witty..but meh) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]