Talk:Columbidae/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs) 13:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Annoyingly, there's a chunk of text copy-pasted (see Copyvio Report, easy fix but I should point it out.	On hold

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Article gives undue weight to far-right pigeon viewpoints. Kidding.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
There have been a few reverts lately, though not significant enough for a fail.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All public domain or CC.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Images perhaps a bit excessive just below the lede - maybe reconsider some as they are not all that relevant to the text. Otherwise no issues.	On hold

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

• Butting in here, the article should state at the outset that it is an order (Columbiformes) with a single family (Columbidae). This then gells with having the material on sandgrouse being formerly in the order, which otherwise looks odd being here.

  Hey! Always welcome for improvements on the article. :D

  Should mentioning that it is a single family be right? Even though it "is" a single family, now that the raphinae is extinct and the pteroclididae is removed from the order; however, would it not lead the readers to think that columbiformes always contained only one family columbidae? I mentioned it now in the first line of "Taxonomy and Semantics", so could you have a look at it and say if it looks good? I restructured the sentence too, so now it, in sum, says that the columbidae is the only family in the order, and also mentions it's reason. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Also, Columbiformes is definitely not Colymbiformes (to which it is linked at first mention)

  Yup. Fixed the issue. I linked it to List of Columbiformes by population. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• John H. Boyd III is an enthusiast with a great website, but his is essentially a self-published non-peer-reviewed tertiary source. The references he uses are mentioned on his page and should be looked up.

  Yes. It really seems great for details on not only this article but bird articles in general. Also, references 28 and 29 are of his website. :P I will sure refer to his website for more edits on bird articles. Thank you. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• 2.d) Apologies for the late response. The page was not on my watchlist, so I was unaware of the review going on. :P Also, thank you very much for waiting despite the delay and trouble caused by me. I tried fixing the copyvio issue, so could you please look (link) again?

• 6.b) For the images part, do you mean the 4 images below the lead section- "Baby pigeon", "Rock dove in flight", "A resting stand for pigeons", and "Rock pigeon courtship"? I removed the "A resting stand for pigeons" image. This is for that image is too zoomed out and the pigeon is not even properly seen, and really not relevant to the context, as you pointed out. I left the "Baby pigeon" in place, as it shows about the... well, baby pigeons? :P As for the "Rock dove in flight", this image shows the rock dove, whose mention is there even in the introduction. Finally, "Rock pigeon courtship" is an image containing rock doves, which also does not seem to be relevant. Could you say if more images should be removed (maybe the "Rock pigeon courtship")?

Thank You. :) ProgrammingGeek Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• One drive-by question, what are the red-link divisions in the taxobox based on? Some of them seem unconventional, for example by having several tribes within Raphinae... Seems the source is the website of a professor in economics? That seems highly suspicious, recent genetic analyses should be used instead. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  Hi, and thank you for your input. :) The current classfication in the taxobox is based on the clade from the link. It is also present on List of Columbidae genera as per John Boyd's classification. It does seem to be based on the tribes, yeah (as per in the list of columbidae genera). I do not have much idea of John Boyd and his works, and on his website, it shows that he is from the Department of Economics. However, his works seem reliable, as I referred to his website when casliber mentioned it earlier in his comment (at the starting of the "discussion" heading). Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think we would need to see peer-reviewed sources for these claims, he seems to have made his own phylogeny based on various different studies. There must be a more conventional phylogeny we could use, per WP:fringe. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have checked quite a lot now, and it does seem that JBoyd has reliably made that phylogeny here (also lists the citations, below). I also searched here and there (as none had the complete phylogeny), to search for parts of the tree, and it does seem that the phylogeny is correct. Do you suggest for some other source, instead? Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The link you provided is adequate and the article is consistent with everything I've looked up. The amount of images below the lede would only be a problem to me if they were at the cost of prose, but they are next to the phylogeny chart which. Either way the number of images and their positions are a matter of taste and I've seen Featured Articles with more images in smaller spaces. The copyvio has been dealt with as well. Prose is fine and scientific terms are explained/linked to. To me, it looks like you've met all their demands and I can't think of anything stopping this article from passing now. SpartaN (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)