Talk:Crested cuckoo-dove/GA1

GA Review

Passed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 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: Femke (talk · contribs) 12:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. I'm always appreciative of editors working on bird articles :).
A quick read-through revealed two sourcing errors, which I've corrected. The year of discovery, and the content of the 1995 nest (which wasn't observed) Therefore, I'll be doing an in-depth source review
- The year was less of a sourcing issue and more a typo on my part, and the article did not state that 1995 nest had one egg. I've removed the year, as it isn't relevant to when the breeding season occurs. I've also changed it back to "Nests contain a single egg"; the only report in this says that, every species in the genus has a single-egg clutch, and the only literature review of the breeding says that this is "likely characteristic" for the genus. We don't need to put unnecessary doubt on this fact when there's no contradicting information.

When you use two sources for an entire paragraph, it's preferable to indicate which content belongs to which source (but not a GA requirement, but makes reviewers happy)
- Almost every sentence contains information from one of the two sources, so wouldn't really help anything in this case.

although other authors subsequently placed the species as the only species in the genus Coryphoenas --> nit-pick, but I only see one author for this source?
- It's a catalogue that documents uses of different scientific names by different authors; it says "Coryphcenas crassirostris, Wardl. Rams. Ibis, 1890, p. 246 ; Salvad. Mem. R. Ac. Sc. Tor. (2) xlii. p. 60 (Ayg. Orn. Pap. e Mol. p. 186)", so at least two authors here (although more importantly, it was generally retained in Coryphoenas until 1983, as mentioned in the next paragraph).

The description of the Voice contradicts the Pidgeons and Doves book. According to that book, the first part is on one pitch, not rising. Can you give me a quote from the other source? Is the other source more reliable?
- BOW says "two alternating, far-carrying, whistled notes, the first rising in pitch"; more recent, at least, even if it is largely based on Gibbs.

I do not have access to Birds of the World. Can you give me a quote on how they describe the lenght?
- "40–41 cm."

For habitat, the Pidgeon and Dove book says "possibly nomadic". Does Birds of the World contradict this? Our article puts more certainty on it (it is thought to be migratory)
- "Suspected of being nomadic, but no precise details available." Tweaked the article.

All of the sources I have access to in conservation pan out.
Apart from text-source integrity issues, I see no other problems with the article for GA status. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Femke, see replies above. AryKun (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the quick responses :).
  - I corrected in the lead: "The only known nest was found in November on an inaccessible cliff and had a single egg"
    Tweaked to wording from the body.
  - I'm not convinded "reported to" conveys the same amount of certainty as "Nests have". Moreover, Gibbs says the nest was "presumed to have eggs".
    That seems overly pedantic; Gibbs says the authors didn't see the eggs, so he doesn't know and this seems like an issue of him just using normal language. The more recent literature review is clear on one-egg clutches being characteristic for the genus and the only type reported in this species, so I don't see a reason to doubt this in the absence of contradicting information.
  - The main reason I added the year was that, to me, the text read like it was discovered this November. Can you tweak so that it is more clear? (On a November?). Don't mind the omission of the year, even though I think it's interesting for the body of the article.
    Reluctantly added since I can't think of a wording to clarify this.
  - Gibbs says 42 cm. May be worth lengthening the range? Feel free to keep it as is for simplicity, as the numbers are very close.
    Done; happily, also gets rid of the 16–16 issue with the convert template.
  When these are resolved, it's good to go as a GA. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Femke, see further replies above. AryKun (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found the original 1957 source for the eggs, which does state it as fact (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1957.tb01939.x?saml_referrer). It's an old source, but happy to trust it given you're confident and that we tell the readers no nests have been observed in the previous sentence. Sorry for the pedanticness, did not mean to make the review unpleasant. Will list now, and again thanks for your work here! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 11 November 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.