Talk:Pied cuckoo-dove/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) grungaloo (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Starting review grungaloo (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See Prose/Spelling/Grammar section for areas that could use improvement

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   References are good, no OR, Plagiarism, or Copyvio found. Use of inline citation is generally good, but relies heavily on "Pigeons and Doves" book. Limited sources exist, has made use of what is available.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It is shorter than most Bird GAs, however this may be due to a lack of study on the subject. If you're able to find more content to expand on certain details that would be beneficial. - Update: limited sources exist so author has made good use of what is available.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Fairly represents topics and doesn't give undue weight to any POV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Only one image is used for the article. Please add additional images of habitat, eggs, other images of the bird itself, etc. - Map request submitted

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Passed!

Issues to fix

Lead

• Adults are mainly black and white, with whitish heads and underparts, and black wings, tails, and upperparts. - A bit confusing, could reword or split into two sentences.
  • Done. Y

• The only known nest was found in May - Need a year for this.
  • See response below. Y
    • See my longer response below, but I would suggest dropping "was found in May" from this sentence.
      • Added year.

• Nests contain a single white egg. - Bit of a non-sequitur, could be tied into previous sentence for better flow.
  • Done. Y

Taxonomy and systematics

• It does not have any currently recognized subspecies,[5] but populations from the Admiralty Islands have in the past been treated as a distinct subspecies, R. b. solitaria. - Need a reference to it being treated as a distinct subspecies.
  • At the end of the next sentence [fn 7]. Y

Behaviour and ecology

• Defending fruit sources as a method of foraging is fairly uncommon as it requires intermediate crop sizes and moderate rates of visitation by other birds.[9] - This feels oddly stated. There isn't a clear link between why crop size and visitation make this a rare occurrence.
  • Reworded, see if it's better. Y

• The breeding biology of this pigeon is very poorly known. - Consider rewording as "Little is know about the breeding biology of this pigeon"
  • Current wording seems fine to me, it's standard for most species accounts of the type that I've seen. Y
    • Agreed that it's proper English, but maybe consider using "not very well known" instead of "very poorly know". "Not very well known" is much more commonly used.
      • I think it's fine as is.

• The use of month names here is somewhat confusing. If you're referring to a specific month (e.g., May when the nest was found), a year might be beneficial. If you're referring to a month in general (e.g., Courtship displays have been seen in July on Dyaul,),
  • The month in the nest description is to give an idea of the nesting season; I can't generalise from a single observance to all May's of course, but adding the year is superfluous since that's not what the date is there to convey. Y
    • In general I would agree with your intent, and I think it makes sense for the sentence regarding courtship displays. I think in regards to the nest, the sentence reads as though it's referring to a specific instance of finding a nest (which it is), and so having a year would be expected. As you say, you can't generalize from a single observance, but by trying to convey an idea of nesting seasons you are functionally doing just that. I think this gives you two options:
      • Make the intent of the sentence to convey the single observance, and indicate that by giving a year.
      • Leave the year out, but state the the observance of a nest in May indicates this might be when nesting occurs (assuming the sources corroborate that).
        • Added the year.

• Courtship displays have been seen in July on Dyaul, from March to May on New Hanover, and in August on New Britain. - These should be reordered to be chronological.
  • Done. Y

• which is only the female has been observed incubating - Remove "is".
  • Done. Y

• Eggs are ovoid and have dimensions of 34.71 mm × 25.03 mm (1.367 in × 0.985 in). - Consider removing "dimensions" or rewording the sentence to be "are ## x ## in dimension".
  • Reworded. Y

Conservation

• It is mainly threatened by high levels of logging, although hunting may also present a more minor threat. - The use of "more minor threat" doesn't flow well, consider rewriting.
  • Reworded. Y

More general responses

• For the dependence on one source, it's mostly cited to two; Gibbs 2010 and Baptista 2020, because those are the only recent comprehensive accounts of the species. For any sections that have independent sources not already incorporated by these two, I do cite the original studies, as in foraging, breeding , and conservation. Y

• For shortness: the article's fully comprehensive and has practically everything that's known about the species in it, I've gone through almost every article mentioning the species published since its description. The shortness is because there just isn't that much known in the first place. Y
  • Understood - I think this is a great treatment of the subject!

• For the photo: the photo in the article is from the only iNaturalist observation and was obtained by requesting the author to change the license. There's a sum total of 9 observations with photos on eBird, but eBird doesn't have any way to contact observers on the site. None of these photos illustrate any aspects of breeding; the only photo of the egg, in the article cited, is apparently copyrighted by the AMNH. Y
  • Understood, I appreciate the work you put in to get the photo. Is it possible to add a range map, or a pushpin map indicating where the Bismark Archipelago is?
    • Will ask another editor, might take a couple of days to add the map.

• Grungaloo, see replies above. AryKun (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  • AryKun, I've made some replies, let me know your thoughts! grungaloo (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

    Grungaloo, see above. The range map request has been made at the Map workshop, might take some days to be completed. AryKun (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

    AryKun Thanks! I'll mark this as on hold then. Once that's added I'll promote the article. grungaloo (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

    Range map takes a bit of time - passing this now so it's not help up. grungaloo (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.