Talk:Bird migration/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I propose to take on this review. On preliminary inspection, it looks a thoroughly competent article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

First reading

A few points:

• Both the first two sentences in the lead are complex sentences which I consider have too many clauses before getting to the main verb.

reworded.

• "... risks of the migration such as predation. Predation can be ..." - Better not to repeat the word "predation" in this way.

done.

• Now that bird common names are no longer capitalised in Wikipedia, perhaps you should do likewise. I will note the examples I notice here: swallow, (eastwards!), red knot, dunlin, blue grouse, American goldfinch, Arctic tern, Arctic tern again, Manx shearwater, Bar-tailed Godwit, Griffon Vulture, Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Cedar Waxwing, Bar-tailed Godwit again, Osprey, Honey Buzzard, Canada Geese, Whooping Crane,

I think these have all been done now.

• Bar-headed geese needs a capital!

done.

• In the section "Long-distance migration" several birds have no scientific names whereas previously you have assiduously provided these.

done.

• "... feeding sites is a barrier to may also be a barrier" - Muddled sentence.

fixed.

• "...forage less on migration" - perhaps "during" for clarity.

done.

• "...move further to the coast or to a more southerly region." - Perhaps "towards".

done.

• Where did the red crossbill irruptions occur?

England stated.

• "This is termed as protandry." Is the "as" necessary? Do you think this paragraph could be better expressed in layman's terms?

reworded.

• "With experience they learn various landmarks ..." - The rest of this paragraph is talking about a bird in the singular.

changed to singular.

• What has the sentence about "watchpoints" got to do with vagrancy?

reworded.

• "- usually once a year but sometimes two -" - Maybe "twice"?

done.

• "Considerable interest has been taken ..." - Into what?

reworded.

• Why is "Emlen funnel" bolded?

removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now finished the first reading. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: All comments actioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

GA criteria

• The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout. The suggestions I made above have been implemented
• 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 and I would like to congratulate the nominator on an excellent article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)