Talk:Great tit/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Annalise (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, I'm going to be reviewing this article over the next few days.[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I have a few concerns:
The areas of the article that discuss taxonomy are sometimes confusing. In the lead, from "in the past" to the end of the first paragraph, I find it hard to tell exactly which species is being discussed at any given point. What were the "two distinct groups"? And then they were separated and... what happened to what? I'm not sure.

I hope I have clarified the issue for you. Let me know if more is needed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's much better. Thank you! Annalise (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering if perhaps you should switch the places of the "taxonomy" and the "description" sections. The taxonomy is the most technical section and is probably not the first thing that the general reader wants to learn about Great Tits.

Confucius says the first step to knowledge is calling something by its proper name.... basically this has come up before in other species. We tend to follow the convention of putting taxonomy first (only sometimes last) , see albatross, Golden White-eye, Cattle Egret, on the basis that before one can talk about something one has to define exactly what "it" is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm not particularly familiar with articles on birds, and when I looked at the Wikiproject and it seemed like it could go either way. If there's consensus, I won't mess with that. Annalise (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style says that lists should be avoided unless they cannot be incorporated into the article. Is it possible to incorporate the list of subspecies, or do something with it?

Again, it is fairly standard to list taxon when there are quite a few of them with little to say about them, and there are quite a few here, with little to say about them beyond who described them. It could probably be turned into text but dull text, with no benefit and a loss of clarity. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, good point, and if there's consensus I won't mess with it. Annalise (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are they red with white spots, or white with red spots? The picture and the text seem to contradict each other, and while I'm guessing the picture's right, I don't know enough about the bird to feel comfortable correcting it myself. Annalise (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Some old brainfail there. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two points in the middle paragraph of the section "Relationship with humans" are unrelated. It really confused me when I was reading the paragraph. Since it's short anyway, perhaps those two points could be integrated into the other paragraphs or otherwise made to belong?

Moved them into the rest of the text. It is always hard with speices that have a few but not many relationship with humans bits, they can easily come off as non-sequiturs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Looks good.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Left-aligned images aren't allowed to be used at the start of sections. Other than that, though, everything looks great. There're some really wonderful images here.
I was under the (mis?)impression that only applied if the subsection was === or smaller. I've swapped them around anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I mentioned that by memory, and I can't remember exactly where I read it to confirm quickly. It doesn't matter now, but for the future I'll definitely reread and check over that. Annalise (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Everything looks good. Congratulations!
Pass/Fail: