Talk:Greater adjutant

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greater Adjutant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• There is a bit of a tendency to switch from It... to They and vice versa, can you check through for consistency?
• There is a weight which needs US conversion
• I'm not clear with the first two images that the photographer and the uploader for each image are the same person. If that can't be established, there may be a copyright issue.
• Link check: 41 is dead, 36 and 37 don't go to the indicated text, 15, 26 and 27 go to subscription-only pages. The latter should either be marked as such or the link removed (personally I never link to abstract-only sites because they are commercial, but that's just my view, your call)
• I've made some changes, please check. No other issues apart from those indicated above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed most of the issues above. The first image (taxobox) is definitely by Yathin (who I know IRL) and uploaded by him - the second I am afraid is more of a systemic issue since the uploader has not used a legal name to identify self. The jstor links were added by the citation bot and I have removed them. The dead link seems redundant as the information was supported by an existing reference. Many thanks for the careful reading and tweaks made. Shyamal (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Other sources" section. I thought in-line refs should be used for sources. Should this be a "Further reading" section. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

These are sources that are not easily available (and not available to me) but should be useful for anyone doing further research. Shyamal (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• "When walking on the ground, it has a stiff marching gait from which the name "adjutant" is derived". Needs rephrasing. Adjutant is derived from a latin word meaning "to help" according to the wiki page, which in turn leads to the name of the military rank or appointment, and hence the name of this bird. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but would it not be better to expand it in the linked article ? Shyamal (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• "it lacks vocal muscles": Does it lack a syrinx? (or a larynx with vocal cords - mammal equivalent)? What noises do chicks make? Snowman (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not found in literature, I suspect they dont make many sounds either Shyamal (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sanskrit hadda-gilla which means "bone-swallower". Does it actually swallow bones? Snowman (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

They swallow chunks of food whole. No bird can chew in any case. Shyamal (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bearded Vulture swallows bones. I think that it would be odd if the Greater Adjutant was called a bone swallower, if it did not swallow bone. I think this is confusing to the reader and needs more explanation. Snowman (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Behaviour and ecology" probably needs subdividing with more headings. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Now split. Shyamal (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• What colour are the eggs? Snowman (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

White. Added. Shyamal (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• The introduction says the word "hargila" means bone-swallower, but according to a later section "hadda-gilla" means bone swallower. This apparent inconsistency to people that do not understand Asian languages is confusing. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Will clarify. Shyamal (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The introduction now says; "Known locally as Hargila". However, as the bird has a large range from India to Borneo it is not clear to what local region it is referring to. Snowman (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• File:Greater Adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius).jpg - Why has this bird not got a pouch? Snowman (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The pouch is not always visible, it can also vary in distension. Check images on http://orientalbirdimages.org/ Shyamal (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this would need to be in the caption to explain the image. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Greater Adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius) is a very large wading bird": There is no other mention of it being a wading bird in the article, and this fact is unreferenced. Similarly that they soar with vultures is only found in the introduction. The introduction should be a summary of the article and not bring new facts to the article. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• "At least two species of bird lice, Colpocephalum cooki[36] and Ciconiphilus temporalis[37] have been found as ectoparasites." It is not immediately clear why this is in the mortality section. It could be in a morbidity section, if the lice caused an ailment, or the mortality section if the ailment caused death. Snowman (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Title changed, actually it is always only a factor and even diseases do not necessarily cause death. Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• It would be interesting if the article had an account of what unhealthy birds die from. Snowman (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I find the "Distribution section" difficult to read and understand, and did not find a clear account of their current range and movement, because much of the paragraph is in the past tense. A wikilink for "riverine plains" would be useful. It might be better to separate historical and current ranges where possible. Will old and current range maps be useful? Snowman (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Should Ardea argala be listed as a synonym in the infobox? Snowman (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The "synonym" section of the taxobox is widely disputed - what we have are more like chresonyms and combinations are not considered synonyms. Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• The introductions mentions two breeding populations, but there are three breeding zones on the range map in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is updated as there are some newly described satellite breeding colonies. Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• "but have declined greatly, possibly due to improved sanitation". Is improved sanitation the only cause of declining populations? What about environmental loss? Does diclofenac poison these birds like it does to vultures? Snowman (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess someone needs to do that research on the ground and publish it otherwise any suggestion would be original research. Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Provisional impression. I have tried to be objective; nevertheless, I may have a conflict of interest, because I edit bird pages and I have been editing the article since its GA nomination. I have found a number of problems so far, and I think that I would be happier if the article was copy-edited rigorously again prior to GA, as I think there is likely to be some remaining readability problems or somewhat disjointed prose. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuming for the moment we are just looking at GA, not potential FA, I think this more than meets the grade, but the issue regarding the status of the second image needs to be resolved, or it should be removed. I can't pass an article containing an image that is unverifiable as a free image. I agree with Snowman, incidentally, that "Further reading" would be clearer than "other sources" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is perhaps no easy way to verify if djshal is Vishal Sabherwal (but it seems ok according to http://www.wix.com/djshal/colours-bkp ). I have replaced it for an image of the Lesser Adjutant with the difference indicated. Shyamal (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Good Article review

In the light of Snowman's comments, I carefully reread the criteria. Whilst this article might need a bit of polish to get to FA, in my view it fulfils the GA criteria, so here goes:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)