Talk:Black drongo/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Needs some overhaul to bring it to GA.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Concise, but lead is too short.
Apparently fixed. Shyamal (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance:
Inconsistent unit measurement. The unit jumps back and forth between imperial and metric systems.

Uses convert template. Shyamal (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few more in Black Drongo#Nesting and breeding OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Some parts of the article used essay papers, but since those journals are peer-reviewed, I assume these paper were written based upon previous studies.
Can these "essay papers" be pointed out ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamal (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 February 2009
That would be the ones in Black Drongo#Taxonomy and systematics. You can see that they still have the reference type normally used in journal articles and not Wikipedia. Also, I'm not sure how this section is utilized in the article itself. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references are actually the original species descriptions. Have moved some of the details to the taxobox. The other sources are things that need to be found. Have commented it out for now. Shyamal (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting out is not the correct form of addressing the issues. The right way is to find references, not ducking your head in the sand. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We frequently use lists of references as indications for future improvement (see for example Rufous-crowned Sparrow. Not all references are traceable even if one had access to the best of libraries. In any case, I am unable to see how this constitutes OR. Shyamal (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all fixed. Anything else of concern in this item? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Awaiting improvements. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual inaccuracy

Under synonyms, one of the supposed synonyms is anything but a synonym. A synonym is an alternative name for a taxon that has either has the same type specimen (objective or nomenclatural or homotypic synonym) or a different type specimen (subjective or taxonomic or heterotypic synonym). Subspecies are valid taxa, and when a subspecies is elevated to species, this is still the same taxon. The name changes from a trinomial to a binomial, but these are not synonyms as the subspecies and species name are the same, just the rank is different. The same when the genus name is changed, it remains the same taxon and is not a synonym, but a different combination. I removed the non-synonym already once, but I was told to be wrong, so I post it here now for discussion. Anyway, this basically indicates that pint 2 of the GA criteria is not met as it is factually incorrect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It seems more like a convention problem rather than one of facts. My understanding follows the conventions followed for example in http://documents.sp2000.org/Documentation/standarddatasetv1.2dec2002.doc but I have requested further feedback at WT:TOL. PS: fully accept the strict definition that you state per the code. Shyamal (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that both links actually say the same. I think the discussion is about what constitutes a synonym, and what constitutes a rank difference, but is effectively the same name. I will try to explain it better in the text. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]