Talk:Rodrigues rail

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Great to see more from you; I'm happy to offer another review. Thoughts to follow. J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think the lead could be improved- an indication of when the species became extinct and its former range would be useful. I don't think jumping into taxonomical controversies in the second line is a good idea- that's not of interest to a lot of readers.

Done, and can't believe I didn't mention the island in the lead, must be because of all the other articles I've worked on with very similar intros...

• "The second description is by Julien Tafforet, from 1726." Perhaps explain who he is?

Done.

• Sometimes you use "grey", othertimes you use "gray"- choose one of American or British English (or Canadian/Australian/whatever else)

I'll change it to grey.

• "differential food availability" Is "differential" definitely used correctly here?

I removed the sentence, was a weird remnant of the old version.

• It'd be great if we could have a picture of the red rail- perhaps the two Frohawk pictures could be placed side-by-side? Template:Multiple image can be good for this, if you fancy it.

I added the Red Rail image, but since the other one in the taxobox, I've just placed it in a section where it is mentioned.

• Not sure what can be done about this, but I thought it worth mentioning- the "behaviour" section just reads, for the most part, as a paraphrasing of the two contemporary descriptions.

Yes, that's a remnant of the old version of the article, perhaps I could break up the quotes so one comes under description and the other goes under behaviour? Then the paraphrasing could be cut down.

• Your formatting on the Olson source is a little off. Same for the Milne-Edwards source.

Done, were both taken from elsewhere.

• I don't like the hanging external link in the Voyages et Avantures de François Leguat & de ses Compagnons footnote

Done, it was also without a citation template, which was overlooked in the Solitaire FAC.

• I worry slightly about the moderately heavy reliance on the Gunther source, which is over 130 years old. I don't object to it as such, but it's something to be aware of.

Yes, I'd love if there were more recent sources, but the bird is extremely obscure, and often overshadowed by the Red Rail, and just mentioned in passing. Perhaps because it was never depicted alive. The Günther source is the most comprehensive osteological account.

• Category:Monotypic bird genera?

I'll add it.

• To be honest, I think I'd rather see the reconstruction as the lead image, unless we have a reason to consider it unreliable. The bones are probably a little dull to the general reader- equally, I'd not put a spore picture in the lead of a mushroom article, even if the spores happened to be the most distinctive element.

I was thinking the same at one point, but thought the bones were more reliable. Storrs Olson called it "fanciful", and I think the eye patch might be exaggerated, compared to the descriptions. But yes, it is nice to look at, so I think I'll switch.
Hope these thoughts are helpful. I'll give the article another read through once you've responded to them (or not, as the case may be). J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(Also, I did some copyediting- please make sure you're happy with it.) J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review, and the copy edit is good, I'll address your points as I get to them. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

All should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the picture has been described as "fanciful", that would be something worth mentioning in the caption. J Milburn (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Heheh, he used quite some colourful language in that paper, he also called one of the old Red Rail drawings "ludicrous". I'll add it to the caption when I get the PDF again (to check the correct context). FunkMonk (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now added a bit of text about modern reconstructions. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I didn't catch that you were finished here- I'll take another look now, but I may need to come back to it at another point. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the repetition is still grating on me a tad, and I think the bunched-up illustrations would annoy a lot of people. Perhaps lose the frontispiece, bring together the bones into Template:Multiple image and move the Red Rail pic to the right? Other possibilities- put one of the bone pics as a second taxobox image and consider losing the Red Rail (my advice may be a long way from perfect...) J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds nice to me, two of the pictures aren't essential at all, just filler (frontpiece, Red Rail), and I think I'll spread the bone pictures out a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see that the reconstruction was actually based on an outline drawn after an old depiction of a Red Rail, and even then the mandible may not be curvy enough. Now all the paraphrased material has been placed in the behaviour section, so at least it isn't spread out. FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy that this is ready to be promoted. Great work- sorry about the delays. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)