Talk:Krüper's nuthatch/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 23:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty good, but could still use some work. I may update this list later, but what immediately sticks out:

Original review

The phylogenic tree is really messing up the layout the way it is.

In my view it looks fine. Other GA nuthatch/bird articles has the same layout, unless you have other idea how to position it other way (but I think this is totally fine).

Adding an image of a related species will confuse people who are just skimming, especially when there are so few photos anyway.

Removed

The description section is awkwardly written. For instance (emphasis mine): "The eye is surrounded by a thin white eye ring, and the iris is dark cinnamon or brown. Iris dark cinammon or brown; the bill is dark horn-grey; the upper mandible cutting edge at the base is blue-grey, as is the entire lower mandible base."

Reworded

Some of the "Description" section would work better in "Taxonomy."

Moved the first sentence of the third paragraph into taxonomy

The third paragraph of "Distribution and habitat" is filled with excessive numerical measurements that might overwhelm casual readers.

I guess, removed all the converted measurements.

It feels a little short overall. I can't quite put my finger on what it's missing, but add whatever extra information you can find.

Added more [1]. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:55D4:B319:F667:254F (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional

"Practically endemic to Turkey" doesn't sound quite right. It's either endemic or not, and since it's not, it might be better to say "found almost entirely in Turkey." --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded

Minor, but the name of the red-breasted nuthatch where it's mentioned in "Taxonomy" should be lowercase. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced

Many links reused multiple times on the page, sometimes multiple times in the same section. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed duplinks, the lead shouldn't probably be included in this case.

What variety of English is this written in? I've seen both "gray" and "grey" used. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced everything into "gray".

There are a couple issues of improper capitalization ("Vocalizations" section). --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues, shouldn't the birds name like "Kruper's", "Eurasian" and "European", including the scientific name like "Chloris" and "Gallurus" I think supposedly be all capitalized? 180.194.127.148 (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about being blind. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"However, the bird is absent from the Turkish pine forests in Crimea, northwestern Syria, Lebanon, northern Iraq, and Azerbaijan, but may have lived there in the past or gone unnoticed for the moment." This feels too specific to not have some kind of elaboration. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded

"A supposedly disjunct population inhabits the Caucasian mountains of the extreme southwest of Russia, on the Georgian border, in the Adygea and the Federal District of the North Caucasus, southeast to Teberda." What makes them disjunct, and why "supposedly"? --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was vague either way. I just ended up removing it.

"...sometimes taking part in mixed-species foraging flocks." What sort of species do they flock with? If you can't find out, it's fine. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not stated at the source.

There's potential, but I would address these things first. I'll comment on your updates or point out new issues if I have a chance. As I'm not quite done examining and reviewing, all new critiques not found in the original review will be grouped separately and signed.

Update 1: Good job fixing the issues. I guess the phylogenic tree image is okay. I would recommend moving the illustration to somewhere else, though, as I think it would look slightly better. I also bolded the words "dark horn-grey" in that long quote above because I'm not entirely sure what "horn-grey" is. I can't work on this for a while, but in the meantime, I'm happy to let other editors suggest improvements. I hope I won't be too long before I can conclusively finish the review. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, moved the illustration image at the right side. I uploaded the book page file here at workupload, it really shows "dark horn-grey" including the iris thing. Okay, if you think you are unable to finish the review, perhaps request a second reviewer. Many thanks. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:55D4:B319:F667:254F (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be able to finish the review, it just might take a little while. For now, I would recommend paraphrasing some of the description section, since it seems to be almost perfectly copied from the book. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine, I can wait anyway. It was only the "the iris is dark cinnamon or brown;[5] the bill is dark horn-gray;" was copied as that sentence looks pretty hard to paraphrase. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:BDE0:3AEB:D9BE:444A (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I've considered it thoroughly and I think it's safe to say this article can now be passed. I've compared it several other listed GAs and can safely say it matches them in quality. Excellent work. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]