Talk:Jungle bush quail

Extention to the article

I thought I'd just let people know that I have extended the article on Jungle Bush-Quail. I hope that will help to improve it. Just to let you know, it should be Jungle Bush-Quail, not Jungle Bush Quail (forgot the '-'). Ross Rhodes (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jungle bush quail/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 09:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• from the "Mahratta region" – why is this in quotation marks?

I'm quoting the description, as Mahratta region isn't an exactly defined area.

• link "generic name"?

Done.

• link "genus"?

Done.

• The upperparts have more marking and the primaries are mottled and bars. – what does "bars" mean here?

Typo, meant "barred".

• dull brownish-horn – horn, is that a shade of color? I suggest to link this term.

No appropriate link, changed to "grey"

• but the latter population is now locally extinct. – I would say the species is locally extinct on Mauritius, but the population is fully extinct?

Reworded.

• thin grasslands to dense deciduous forest. – why plural and then singular?

Changed both to plural.

• Karnataka – link at first mention, not at second.

Fixed.

• but may be a migrant in Nepal – include "possibly" here, since you also state that those Nepal reports may be erroneous?

Done.

• What is missing is the role of this species in research, see [1]. Is it some kind of model species? Interesting bits from those papers could be included in the text, and/or a summary section of those research activities could be provided, to cover this aspect somehow?

I'd expect this to be mentioned more at FA level that GA.

GA criterion 3a reads "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". I do consider the substantial research carried out using the species as model species to be a main aspect, so I think that this needs to be covered in a GA. But note that I do not request that all aspects of this research are covered. It would suffice to give some general statement on the importance of the species as model species (such could possibly be found in the introduction sections of one of the papers), followed by some examples that stick out. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I still think this is more at FA level, especially since nearly every study on Scholar seems to have a C. Haldar as an author, which makes me think that the selection of the jungle bush quail is a personal preference. AryKun (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

C. Haldar seems to be leader of a research group especially active on the topic, but if you look through the first five pages on Google Scholar, you find a number of paper where he is not co-author (indicating research done by different groups). Relevance as model organism, as indicated by five Google Scholar pages that have this species name in the title, cannot be completely ignored in a GA, as far as I understand the criteria. We can call for a second opinion if you wish. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Added bunch of info about what seem to major themes in the research about it, along with other bits of info I found. AryKun (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice, looks great! Promoting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reads very well overall! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)