Jump to content

Talk:Hooded pitohui/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as the junior synonym to Pitohui" Synonym of is the usual phrasing.
  • "was once placed in the genus Pitohui with five other species" It is still placed in the genus, so isn't it better to say "five other species were also once placed in the genus"?
  • You give scientific names in parenthesis after common names some places, could be consistent.
Still more needed throughout, but no big deal now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the differences are very slight and are generally regarded as inseparable" Differences are inseperable? Or the subspecies?
  • Why do you only mentioned the specific name at the very end of the taxonomy section? It could be mentioned in the very first sentence about its naming.
  • Synonyms in the taxobox should have authorities.
  • Why call the descriptive section "morphology", unlike pretty munch all other bird articles?
Hmmm, but physiology has more to do with behaviour and ecology than with physical features, no? FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description section also seems extremely short compared to most other bird articles?
  • The toxicity section seems ill placed with the descrition, would make more sense with behaviour/ecology. Even the current title, morphology, would imply a section specifically about physical features.
  • It also seems a bit unusual that the ecology and behaviour sections are divided by the distribution section?
Hmmm, in that case, I think the only way to solve all the above issues satisfactorily would be to have a more traditional description> distribution> behaviour> ecology> toxicity> strucure. I think it would make a more logical flow, especially since the toxicity is related to its diet, and not at all with its physical features. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would object very strongly to that layout. Appearance and toxicity are functions of of their physiology. And you need to introduce toxicity before you talk about the ecological functions of the trait. Moving distribution between toxicity and ecology would be infinitely preferable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess it's a matter of taste, and will leave it at that. But if it is brought up by others during FAC, might be good to act upon it. In any case, the term "morphology" refers to the shape of something (not its function), so it might be better to have a "physiology" title to cover both description/morphology and toxicity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, to hysiology and description. Incidentally HBW, which we loosely based our article layouts on, uses "morphological aspects" for the whole realm covered by that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The snake photo has quite a messy description template, could be cleaned up, so it doesn't look like it has no source.
  • "didn't live as long" Contractions are discouraged in general.
  • "were long thought to be similar due to being congeneric" I'm not sure what is meant by this. Sure it isn't the other way around, that they were considered congeneric because they were similar?
  • Its circular. They were assumed to be congeneric because they were similar and they were assumed to be similar because they were congeneric. In this case we are interested in the logic this way around. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does Pitohui mean?
  • "toxicity was not considered a trait observed in birds, at least not by the general zoology community" Quotes should have in-text attribution, though I'm not sure why this sentence cn't just be rewritten instead of quoted?
  • "which can slur up or down and interspersed with pauses" Intersperse?
  • "It also makes and a "tuk tuk w’oh tuw’uow” call" Mistake?
  • "down downlurred whistled" Something wrong here?
  • "isn't true" Contraction.
  • "incubation period isn't known" Likewise.
  • "young birds haven't developed" Likewise. Perhaps look if there are more I have missed.
  • "Young birds will make a threat display when approached in the nest, rising up and erecting its head feathers." You go from plural to singular.
  • "most closely related variable pitohu" To the?
  • The intro needs a physical description.
  • Seems everything has been addressed, so will now pass. Hope this hasn't seemed extra nitpicky, but hey, we shouldn't make the effectiveness of the bird article factory too suspicious... FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The writing in this is so badly organized as to look like the typical WikiCup random assemblage of facts with single words changed to avoid charges of plagiarism. Most toxic of three species? How many species are there according to the taxonomy? "Vital organs?" The liver. It's specific which vital organs.

Why is this a "Good Article?" --2601:648:8503:4467:855B:48B5:C644:C7CB (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues, list them in the open FAC, not at a closed GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hooded_pitohui/GA1&oldid=790946186"