Talk:Zapata rail

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Review claimed, comments soon. Sasata (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• lead: link habitat loss (and later in Conservation status section)

Done

• does ref #2 have a title? Is it really only 1 page?

None that I can find (I can't access the original. No reason to doubt that its only one page though

Found the citation and filled in the details. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• link specific name
• "… eventually leading to the finding of the rail." perhaps reword to avoid passive voice

Done

• "Cervera was also the finder of the" how about "Cervera also found the"

Done

• wlink plumage, down

Done

• "The sexes are similar," add "in appearance"?

Done

• "similar to Bare-legged Owl" either add "the" or pluralize owls

Done

• link nominate subspecies

Done

• "Typical plants are…" not clear what's typical about them? Typical plants found in the vegetation preferred by the Zapata Rail?

Done

• "James Bond found a nest…" perhaps add "American ornithologist". The Ian Fleming name connection was interesting, will definitely drop that tidbit in a future conversation.

Done

• "…pectoral girdle and wing are as reduced as in other species of rails…"; link pectoral girdle

Done

• "…very susceptible to introduced predators." link introduced (also in lead too)

Done

• 230 hectares -> convert

Done

• link predation (?), protected areas, conservation measures, ecotourism

Done

• "The Zapata Rail is classed as endangered" classed->classified

Done

• "but Cuba's Tourism Minister and Pablo Bouza" does the tourism minister have a name?

he does, done

• "global warming" and "climate change" are used in consecutive sentences. Does the source use these (politically-loaded) terms? Couldn't global warming also lead to higher ocean temperatures?

The source has "Climate change" in the title. I don't think these are politically loaded except in the US - it's mainstream science elsewhere

• "..once the fallen vegetation had dried out." -> dries out

Done

• Caption: "… is a serious predator" could use better adjective than "serious"

Done "major"

• et al. needs a fullstop (abbreviation of et alii/aliae/alia)

Done

• I know you aren't a fan of unnecessary punctuation, but it looks inconsistent to have some refs ending in a fullstop (because the template puts them there) and some not

Done!

• foreign-language titles sources should include a translated title

Done

• why not put accessdate directly in citation template? (parameter accessdate= )

Don't know, I had problems withthe template at one time so now I avoid it.

• the above ref tweaks are beyond GA criteria, so feel free to ignore

All done I think, thanks for the careful review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the catfish be mentioned in the text body? —innotata 13:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, it's in para 3 of status (I've changed the link to the species now) and the image caption, where else do you think it should be mentioned? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean: shouldn't everything in the caption be in the text? —innotata 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The article meets all of the GA criteria: Sasata (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written; complies with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Well-cited to reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage comparable to other bird GAs; there's not a lot of info on this bird.

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):

   Images are PD or have appropriate free-use licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reliable sources, authority references, original research

The current binomial name of this rail is sourced only to the original description, leaving its name unreferenced in this article. The original description may be useful for some aspects of the article, as its usage after the authoerity in the taxobox, for example. However, an organism's name ia not today defined by the original authority, but by the body of taxonomic literature about the organism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a body of taxonomic experts, a review article or bird book, sufficiently recent, with the authority would be appropriate. Eau (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Image Problem

I'm not so sure the image that was just added is PD. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#United_States The problem is that we don't know what work it was published in in 1928 and if it was renewed. This definitely isn't PD because of life+70 years.

very faithfully artical Maroof Ali (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This should be PD US NOT RENEWED. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACyanolimnas_cerverai_by_Allan_Brooks_cropped.jpg&type=revision&diff=209480167&oldid=181593591 PumpkinSky talk 00:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)