Talk:Black-and-yellow broadbill/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: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 03:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article that seems at first glance to be well-written and researched. The topic could be of interest to a wider audience. I look forward to starting a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking on the review. I'm thinking of taking this to FAC, so feel free to nitpick. AryKun (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll try. Good luck. simongraham (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is clear with no obvious spelling or grammar errors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article complies with relevant Manuals of Style.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reference section is included.
	2b. 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).	Citations are reputable, mainly from peer-reviewed journals.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research is noted.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio indentifies no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is neutral, showing a range of views where needed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There are no edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged appropriately.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 96.6% of authorship is by AryKun. It is currently ranked C class.

• The article is of reasonable length with 1,758 words of readable prose, plus a cladogram and an infobox.
• It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
• Citations seem to be thorough.
• Images have suitable Creative Commons or Public Domain licenses.
• Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 10.7% chance of copyright violation with the Avibase entry[[1]]. It seems to be mainly the proper nouns which are the problem. Please can you confirm.

The issue there is the proper nouns and Wikipedia excerpt that Avibase shows at the top.

• "Both of these clades are sister to the Grauer's broadbill" Please check this for verb agreement.

Seems correct.

• "Individual birds feeding on exposed perches in the canopy may be acting as lookouts for larger, more spread out flocks." There seems to be disagreement amongst editors about hyphenating words like "spread out". I suggest a synonym like "dispersed".

Done.

• "Nests are built by both sexes, and are typically located at the edges of clearings or above streams in obstacle-free sites." Consider removing the comma.

Removed.

• "Eggs measure 22.9 mm–24.1 mm × 17.4 mm–19.7 mm (0.90 in–0.95 in × 0.69 in–0.78 in) in size, and are oval-shaped…" Again, the comma is superfluous.

Removed.

• "The flecking and spots occur all over the egg, but are densest at a band around the broader end" Consider removing the comma and replacing "at a band" with "in a band"

Done.

• "It was previously common throughout its range, and is still locally common in areas with suitable habitat" Another superfluous comma.

Removed.

• * I cannot see any other obvious grammar and spelling issues.
• "However, there is substantial individual variation between individuals from all populations, making the recognition of subspecies inadvisable." Can this be clarified?

Reworded.

@AryKun: Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Simongraham: I've dealt with everything you pointed out, please have another look. AryKun (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@AryKun: Excellent work. I will complete my assessment. simongraham (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass 05:41, 7 January 2022‎ (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.