Talk:Kea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 17:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of problems with this article that prevent it from being a GA.

The quality of the writing is severely lacking. I see issues with clarity, tone, and even grammar throughout the article. I suggest enlisting the help of a prose reviewer to go through the entire article.
The massive table in Diet needs to be summarized into readable prose.
The Interactions with humans section doesn't work. Some of the information should be placed in an Ecology section, some of it should be moved to an In culture section, and some of it is wild speculation and pointless anecdotes that should just be deleted.
One- and two-sentence paragraphs should be expanded, deleted, or merged. Avoid introducing factoids without context.
Life span is not substantial enough to be a top-level section. The information presented therein should be worked into a Behavior section, along with Breeding and Diet. See Red-billed Chough as a good example of how to organize a taxonomy article.
"The population was estimated at between 1,000 and 5,000 individuals in 1986, contrasting with another estimate of 15,000 birds in 1992." Stats such as these should not be 20 years out of date. In general, a taxonomy article should focus on presenting the current state of knowledge, not the entire history of observations. This is particularly problematic in the second paragraph of Diet, a bloated mass of outdated factoids which would be better suited for a documentary than an encyclopedia.
Much of the article is underlinked.

Let me know if you have any questions or would like more feedback on the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]