Talk:Purple-throated cotinga

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Purple-throated Cotinga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 10:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the usual selection of nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• link Amazonian, iris, migratory, invertebrate, iridescent, molting

Done

• Check use of "However", it seems overused to me

Two of four are gone now

• In contrast, females (x2) — I don't think contrast works, and it's not needed

Done

• The male is known to have a powerful voice = has a powerful voice

Done

• Little research has been done on this species, and little... — avoid repeat

Done

• It is known that the Purple-throated Cotinga is primarily frugivorous = The Purple-throated Cotinga is primarily frugivorous

Done

• similar to the Cotinga cotingas — perhaps "species" instead of the second cotinga?

Done

• 18 to 18.5 cm — 18.0 for consistent accuracy

Done

• This species is considered to have a powerful... — Has it or hasn't it? Considered seems pointless

The considered was for the second clause of the sentence, but I think you are right. Fixed.

• This species is known to perch = This species perches

Done

• Status This species — it's a new section, give its name

Done

I'll have another look later, and I haven't checked the refs or images yet. I did notice that the last ref needs the binomial italicising. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Image comments licences OK

• On the map's Commons description, I'd be inclined to distinguish between the base map and the data source

Done

• With the lead image, I wonder if it would be better to give the date and book rather than the obvious (black and white) or pointless (in color, throat would be purple) since described in text.

Fair enough. Done

Thank you for doing the review. I think I've hit all the above comments, including the ref italicizing (keep forgetting it doesn't transfer when pasted in). Could you check on the map's licence again? I think I've got it right unless there is a set way of writing it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

All looks good, including the map description. Formal review follows. I might do your other bird in the next few days if I get time, I'll be looking for "is known to" (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review' (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you. The Choiseul Pigeon article is clear of that phrase. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)