Talk:Beautiful nuthatch/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review. My first impression is good and I will make a detailed study of the article shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First reading[edit]

"The bright blue color of its plumage invites a comparison to the blue nuthatch (S. azurea), or other blue-tinted nuthatch species such as the velvet-fronted nuthatch (S. frontalis), yellow-billed nuthatch (S. solangiae) and the sulphur-billed nuthatch (S. oenochlamys), but its distribution centered in the eastern Himalayas, and the unique patterns of the plumage, argues against the assumption" - I think this is original research as it does not seem to be mentioned in the source given.

I had the wrong page number, 172 rather than 173 (see RELATIONSHIPS section). I'm not sure from this that your note results from my mistake, or that you did see this text, but think it went too far in specifying particular other blue nuthatches (S. solangiae, S. frontalis & S. oenochlamys), where Harrap only refers to blue nuthatches, without specifying?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about "inviting comparison" in the source. You could instead go along the lines of "It is unlikely to be confused with .... because they do not share the same range." giving citations for the range of each comparitor (if that's the right word!). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: I don't want to be difficult "reviewee" and will change it to something if you require, but I don't understand. To my mind the source's: "The lustrous blue coloring may hint at an affinity with..." is really very directly synonymous with my: "The bright blue color of its plumage invites a comparison to..." (maybe I should have said "may invite"), but the point is, to my ear it's far more synonymous than "It is unlikely to be confused with..."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be a difficult reviewer, but we seem to be talking at cross purposes. When I look at the citation now I see a different source from the one I saw before, and neither of them used the phrase you quote "The lustrous blue coloring may hint at an affinity with". I daresay we'll get to the bottom of it yet! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Ha! Okay, this is all me. First I had the wrong page number (172) in the article. Then, when I switched it to the correct page number in the article (173), I wrote above (though with the correct link), exactly backwards, "172 rather than 173 (see RELATIONSHIPS section)". It is page 173 (rather than 172) and it is the Relationships section, which the very last section in the source before REFERENCES.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's sorted then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The upper parts are generally orange-cinnamon" - Are you talking about the underparts here?

Good catch! Fixed.

Is any information available on the incubation period, whether both parents incubate and feed the young, and how long it takes the chicks to fledge?

I found and added a source that the parent share equally in incubating and nest building. I couldn't find anything on incubation period or how long to fledge unfortunately. Harrap says specifically that breeding details are lacking.

Other than that, I find very little to comment on or criticise in the article. The prose is admirable and the lead concisely summarises the body of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on Cwmhiraeth and the kind words. My responses are interlineated above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article is stable.
The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]