Talk:Rook (bird)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


A topic eminently worthy of GA status! Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a genus page. In Britain, it would be the carrion crow but on the continent it could be the hooded crow and in Asia it might be something else again, so "crows" seems best. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a genus page; the genus page is at Corvus. I've made a fix - what do you think? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am happy with that. It seems a rather pointless page, but I suppose it keeps the list of species off the actual genus page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any information about the taxonomy?
Added some. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "except for the hind neck, mantle, scapulars, back, rump, upper tail coverts and underparts, which are brownish-black" A bit jargon-y
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Collective nouns for rooks include building, parliament, clamour and storytelling.[1][2] Their colonial nesting behaviour gave rise to the term rookery.[3]" Does this belong in the description section?
Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the north of its range the species has a tendency to move south during autumn though more southern populations are apt to range sporadically also." Could this be rephrased?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the whole of the paragraph starting "In urban sites" cited to the article about the training?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the diet section is really more about feeding than diet; though Feeding and diet would also be a suitable title.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • filched is a lovely word, but I fear a little informal.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that seem to delight in the autumn gales" Again, I love it, but I fear it would be remiss for me to ignore it...
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has several variants, used in different situations" I'd like to hear more! (Though won't demand it for GAC purposes.)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this same test, rooks showed they understood to pick a stone that was in a shape that rolled easily" This could be neater - the next paragraph, too.
Done. Actually, the "Intelligence" section was in place before I expanded the article, so I left it alone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back to look into references and images, but, from a first read, this looks great. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy enough with the pictures, though I wonder whether there might be a slightly stronger one for the lead. (And I'm not sure if the graph is actually adding anything.)
Changed and removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Palomar Audubon Society a reliable source? New Zealand Birds?
If a bird society has made a list of collective names for birds, I doubt they have made them up. I removed the second source which had about 12 collective names. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we perhaps have The Free Dictionary replaced with a more traditional dictionary?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you check your C. Bird source? I think you've copied the title wrong. (Great name for an ornithologist...)
The referencing of the Intelligence section was a complete mess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you check the Froude source? And I wonder if we have anything more recent we could draw upon?
I like it, and the information is very uncontroversial, but I will remove it if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object too much to the use of the source, but could I ask you to format it like a magazine reference? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to format a magazine reference, but I have added a "chapter" parameter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few tweaks. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formatting on the Greenwood source is a bit off.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the sourcing looks OK, but I'd like to do some spotchecking. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; a couple of spotchecks reveal nothing to worry about. Happy to promote. Great stuff! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Collective Nouns for Birds". Palomar Audubon Society. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
  2. ^ "Collective Nouns for Birds". New Zealand Birds. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
  3. ^ "Rookery". The Free Dictionary. Retrieved 18 May 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rook_(bird)/GA1&oldid=902986728"