Talk:Eurasian bittern/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on, FunkMonk. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of these videos could be nice to add?[1][2][3] There are many nice videos of most birds found in the Netherlands.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why no taxonomy section? Perhaps "etymology" could be converted into one... FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, could it be mentioned what their closest relatives are? FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also mention what capensis refers to? Should be the Cape of Africa...

Added.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between the subspecies?

I don't know and have been unable to find out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date and authors for the subspecies in the taxobox?

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If it senses that it has been observed" By prey or predator?

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there could be a bit more explanation about the "drekavac", where is it from, what are its characteristics, and how does it connect with this bird?

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several paragraphs under In literature are unreferenced.

Chiswick Chap helped out with the In literature section. I queried this for another article and I believe his response was that a work of literature is its own reference. Perhaps he had better confirm this. @Chiswick Chap: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not sure if it's that simple, especially when specific quotes are involved. Could you point to a relevant guideline, Chiswick Chap? FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything less useful than citing guidelines. I'll repeat refs for the direct quotes so there's no doubt; other mentions of literature, if they describe their sources unambiguously, are generally considered to be self-citing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a problem with verifiability. At the very least, page numbers would be needed before a quote could be verified by the reader, which is a minimum requirement. Personally, I don't care, but hey, this is Wikipedia... Might have to ask around. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a problem as long as readers can find the sources, and it isn't required for GA (FA would be another matter, maybe Cwmhiraeth has designs) but I've added refs all over just in case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then you're at least ready for possible FAC, in any case... FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"there are two subspecies, the northern race breeding in parts of Europe and Asia, as well as on the northern coast of Africa, while the southern race is endemic to parts of southern Africa." Their scientific names could be mentioned.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks good, so will pass now. If you take this further, I'd say what the difference between the subspecies is would be an essential addition. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I think the improvement of an article to GA standard is a more worthwhile use of time than further polishing it to get it to FA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]