Talk:River martin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 15:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Review by MMagdalene722

I'll take this article on as my first GAN review! I'll get to work on it this evening. MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 15:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, muito obrigado, I look forward to your comments. (I don't speak Portuguese, but we've been to Portugal and Brazil, and Madeira's booked for next summer, so we've had to learn a few words!) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good article criteria

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.

• My main issue with the article is the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of what's already in the article. This eliminates the need for citations in the lead paragraph because, ideally, whatever is there should already by cited in the body. There is some material and detail in the lead that should be in the first paragraph of the body. It should be fine after a little bit of re-organization and re-writing the lead so that it's a summary of the article.

• Gulp... I usually get criticised for not having enough in the lead!. I've moved the cite to status, and slightly trimmed the lead. I'm not sure what is left that could be reasonably cut, but I'm open to suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Upon closer inspection, I think it looks okay. (Sorry if my comments seem a bit off - I'm obviously not a subject-matter expert here.) Thank you for moving the citation to the body of the article. I'm going to comb it for minor copy-editing needs, and if I change anything, I'll bounce it back to you.
• I made some minor copy-edits, mostly to separate longer sentences and improve readability. Let me know if I messed up any British English (I'm American). If you feel like the copy-edits didn't disrupt or change content, I'll go ahead and give it GA status.

• The edits are all improvements on my text. It's possible that "non-hunting area" should be capitalised, like SSSI, but the source isn't one I have access, to, so might as well leave as is for now, and if anyone can access the source they will fix it if necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• BirdLife International has "Non-Hunting Area", so I've restored the caps Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think the first section should be called "Discovery and Taxonomy" or "History and Taxonomy," since it discusses the discovery and subsequent classification. That's just my personal opinion, though.

• I've used the Bird project's standard headings, the developments in taxonomy follow a time line, so starting with the first formal description makes sense Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, that's fine. Pardon my ignorance. :-)

• In the "Description" section: what is a hirundine?

• It's a posh swallow, now linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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) and

• I'm not sure where some of the material in the last paragraph of the "Status" section is coming from. Is all of that from the BirdLife fact sheet?

• Yes, I could repeat the ref, but I'm reluctant to do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• That's cool. Just wanted to clarify.

(c) it contains no original research.

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

• The captions are fine, but some of the ALT text is kind of random, and one image doesn't have any. Once you make the ALT text consistent, the images aren't a problem.

• Alt text should only describe what can be seen, without other assumptions. If I've failed to do that, could you please clarify? I didn't put alt text on the double map because I assumed the caption was self-explanatory. I've tried to add alt text, but it pushes all the caption to the right. Any ideas? What should I put? Maps of Africa/Thailand basically repeats the caption, contra MOS Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, I just thought that "middle-aged man in Victorian clothing" seemed a little odd.  :-) The reason I brought it up is because someone told me to put ALT text on the images for an article I submitted for peer-review. You're right about the maps - they don't need ALT text. Images are good to go, then.

Other comments:

• The second paragraph in the "Status" section talks about "the wintering Beung Boraphet swallow population." What does this have to do with the river martin?

• reworded to make it clear that the numbers of swallows of all species wintering at the only known site have collapsed, so the chances of finding White-eyed is remote Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you! Much easier to understand now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmagdalene722 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall, it looks good! I'm going to list it as "on-hold" on the GAN page, but it shouldn't take you long to address this stuff. Nice work. MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful review, let me know if there are any other points. It's good when non-content experts review, since it's easy to drop in bits like "hirundine" which are obscure to non-birdie types (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't know if you have looked at the bearpit, which is always short of reviewers. It's worth taking a peek even if you only want to review GANs, since sometimes experienced editors ask for their articles to be given a tough review in preparation for FA (not this one, I add hastily, I just need this and one more for a WP:GT). Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it looks good. Pass!