Talk:Tahiti rail/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the lead; I'm not keen on the where, and Tongan is a dablink. (The dablink also appears elsewhere in the article.)

It's a tricky one, is "when" better? Fixed the links. FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly; "on which", perhaps? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Took it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what "(no. 128)" refers to. In what series? There's another mention of a plate number further down.

In the series of Forster's paintings at the Natural History Museum. The only reference to a series "name" I can find is "icon. ined. Brit. Mus. Nat. His."[1] Not sure what "icon. ined." means, but this contraction seems to be used in many older works... Any idea what it means? I asked the question here:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"it is presumed that Forster saw a skin" Do you mean to say that he didn't see a live bird?

It was never stated explicitly. All we have is Greenway's musing that Forster may have seen a skin... FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A general thought; the bird was clearly known to native Tahitians, so there's an issue with describing it as having been "discovered" by the Forsters. I'm not suggesting that the article needs to be radically reworked, but I think the mentions should take care not to discount the knowledge of the native population.

Yeah, it is hard to veer away from the sources though, as they use this terminology. How about "scientifically discovered", if that is even a correct term, or "recorded"? FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Recorded" is good; "became known to the scientific community" is another possibility, as it's fair to say that the native peoples were not part of the scientific community. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Went with recorded. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" "Oomnaa" or "Eboonàa"" I think this is words-as-words, but they're definitely foreign terms, so italics and no speech marks are probably appropriate. (Same with the others in the paragraph.)

Haha, took me a while to figure out how to make those diacritics! Anyway, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, you misunderstand: I'm saying it should read "Oomnaa or Eboonàa", rather than ""Oomnaa" or "Eboonàa"". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good now? FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He also suggested it may have occurred" Who is the he, here?

Greenway, clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the taxonomy section has a certain "list of facts" feel. I'm not concerned about it for GAC, but I think it's something you'll want to look at before FAC, if this article is headed there.

Not sure how to deal with it, as it is pretty much a paragraph consisting of individual statements from different sources, kept together because they are related in subject or form a sort of "dialogue". What would you suggest? FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I think some may question the value of the blockquote in the description section but, as it's surely PD, I don't mind it being there for GAC purposes.

It was no problem in the recent FAC spotted green pigeon. Since it is the only (and often quoted) first-hand description of the bird, I think it has enough significance to include. FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few small edits; please double-check them.

Look fine, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. This is a strong article; the sources are great, the images are fine (File:Gallirallus pacificus.jpg could have the date of the author's death; the approach taken at File:Gallirallus.pacificus.jpg is a good one), and a search indicates that the article is comprehensive. I can see very little standing in the way of promotion. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review of a comparatively short article! I'll fix the issues soon. Added Forster's lifespan to Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm happy with the fixes. I'm going to go ahead and promote at this time; great work, as ever! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]