Talk:Pied currawong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I will start the review later this evening or so; but I wanted to go ahead and claim the article now before someone else does. heh.-- Rcej (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

The way I like to review is to just focus on a few issues a time as opposed to addressing everything in one big mega-post. The article as is fits B-class, so I went ahead for now and upped it from just C. Anyway, the first issues--

1. The final sentence in the Voice subsection reads somewhat POV. If Pied Currawong has 'one of the most hauntingly beautiful voices...etc., etc.', just a cited quote of whomever used that description or a ce reword will be a good enough fix.

I actually didn't add that to the article (though it is pretty true - birdbooks regularly cite those several species as the most accomplished songbirds in Australia) - I have reworded it to "Along with the Australian Magpie, butcherbirds, Grey Shrike-thrush and the lyrebirds, it has been called one of Australia's most accomplished songbirds." for the time being as it is a bit more neutral and will get a reference. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update: I can't find a decent reference, and it was puffy anyway, so I deleted it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you think the Behavior section would be better as a subsection of the Description section? Part of the bird's decription would include its behavior. I was thinking Description.1 could stay Voice, with Description.2 for Behavior, and Description.3 for Similar species. But, this is entirely optional and cannot affect the review; I just think it would read better that way. Go with your preference, though...absolutely.

Fair point, some time ago we at WikiProject Birds had settled on an order and I like to keep them uniform. Voice is one of those headings that has oscillated between Description and Behaviour. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btw, you have written this article extremely well. Awesome job.-- Rcej (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the distribution and habitat section, there are four assertive/attributive statements that would be better served sourced, so I {{factized}} them. Nothing major, but I want to pass an article that doesn't have unsourced statements apt to be challenged. Once each have a source, we're about good to go.-- Rcej (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorted them out. Added a bit more specific material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Looks like that's about everything, and the images/refs/edit history are all okay too. It's a pass. Well, it was nice working you, albeit brief. thx, and much success to all your endeavors.-- Rcej (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have my hand in another couple of GA nominees at present :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Pied Currawong passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The review process went easily and decisively, and the article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass