Talk:Red-headed myzomela

Housekeeping

Some pre GA (or even FAC) comments. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Make subject singular if possible (unless it looks really odd). i.e. "The Red-headed Honeyeater is.." rather than "Red-headed Honeyeaters are.."

• Page numbers for book refs. I have Beruldsen at hand. Others would be good.

• Everything needs to be referenced - so the alternate common names (I think they come from Higgins)

• I'll do a Web of Science search. that didn't help much, the 1996 Noske paper is the only thing that came up when I searched specifically....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• NB: Blue-faced Honeyeater might be a good comparison as it is Featured.

More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks!Marj (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see what else you find - most simply cite ANZAB, Lewis or Noske. Marj (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I reckon it is worthwhile nominating for GA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red-headed Honeyeater/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll start soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• The lead is too brief, and doesn't adequately summarise the article, eg nothing on feeding or breeding

Done, though further expansion welcomed Marj (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Better, I'd add a sentence about conservation status, since you have a section on it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, added short sentence on conservation. Marj (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Meli is just honey, myzo is to suckle, so it's the whole thing that means honey-sucker

Done - Error in my reference - Casliber's is correct.Marj (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• genetic study of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA — I've bolded words that need wikilinks.

Done Marj (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• In fact, looking quickly ahead, I can see that there are a whole bundle of technical or uncommon words that need linking, please go through and fix.

Done, I think Marj (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• 5.5 birds per hectare needs conversion to birds per acre too

Done Marj (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

2.2 per acre looks better, but not a big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed to 2.2 per acre. Marj (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I made a few edits, mainly MoS stuff

Great! Marj (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Any predators, parasites or diseases?

This is actually a little researched species, but will go over what I have again. One researcher commented that their mangrove habitat and the accompanying sandflies worked against further study being done. Marj (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be away for a few days, so that will give you a chance to expand the lead and add lots of wikilinks. Also read through again to see if is any text that can be improved. I'll go though in more detail then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

PS, if you are thinking about FA eventually, it's worth having a look at recent FAs for ideas on what you should be aiming for in terms of layout and coverage. I notice that your two current GANs actually have different layouts. Recent FAs include White-bellied Sea Eagle, Corn Crake and African Crake Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally I copied the White-bellied layout:

•Taxonomy •Description •Distribution and habitat •Behaviour oFeeding oBreeding •Conservation status oAustralia •Cultural significance •Notes oReferences

and worked from that. But ultimately the coverage will depend on what is significant. No point in having headings for the R-h Honeyeater's Cultural Significance for example.Marj (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Conservation needs expanding. LC because large range and common, something like that. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanded. Marj (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll read through properly when I return, probably Tuesday or Wednesday Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm back!

• In the lead, I'd be inclined to merge the final very short para with the second para

Different topics so I've expanded the final para.

• A single bird was ... and their — number has changed

Subject changed from a single bird to the species as a whole, re-worded.

• a horn-coloured bill having well-developed brood patches — Perhaps insert "also"?

'also' inserted

• mandible — needs link

'mandible' wikilinked

• Mangrove, Paperbarks, Bottlebrush, Pishing — why capitals?

Will check

• Melaleuca, Grevillea — genera should be italicised, also refs 1,2, 13

Italicized

• The Red-headed Honeyeater is a busily active bird, hovering around flowers and snatching insects in acrobatic aerial pursuits and calling constantly as it forages — I'd lose this, since it's repeated in the next sentence

Deleted

• The nest is small and cup-shaped.... They are, — number has changed

Changed to "it is"

• HANZAB ref, — why is volume number bolded?

Bolded by the cite template. I don't know how to over-ride.

• Noske, Richard A. or Noske R. A. But not both

Noske uses both, different on each article - have changed both to Richard A. But will look for Notes on Contributors for that issue. It's not really up to us to say that Richard A. wrote the article when it is attributed to R.A., without some confirmation. His research profile at CDU lists both. Marj (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• In refs, spell out journal names in full

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences expanded

• I don't much like repeating identical refs at the end of every sentence. I'd be inclined only to add a ref where it has changed, or you have reached the end of a paragraph.

Have removed some of these, though on other articles a reviewer has required a ref for every 'fact'.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Marj (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

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:

Well done, bot should update soon. I might pick up your other GAN if no one else does, just check through to make sure that the improvements to this article have been carried over to that one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Jimfbleak, will do another check of Black Honeyeater. Marj (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you plan to take this to FAC eventually, it will need a bit more work; if you let Cas and me know, I'm sure we can suggest some further additions/improvements Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)