Talk:Hoopoe starling/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: IJReid (talk · contribs) 05:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this. I personally know nothing of the bird, so this should be a good experience. I will check whether this article is easy for layman to read, although I might end up requesting a second opinion. I will also give this article a few pre-FAC things to change, within a separate subsection. IJReid (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't expect it would be taken so quickly, so there are actually some info I haven't added yet, will do within the next couple of days... I can't nominate this for FAC before Paraceratherium passes, and I'm also waiting for a copy edit, so we can sure take our time! FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Tick, tock, tick, tock. IJReid (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Added the last stuff, so I think we're ready to go... FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this article may soon be copyedited... FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

First read

• Is hoopoe starling supposed to be lowercase?
• Same with crested starling?

Until recently, yes, but see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Capitalisation_of_common_names FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure "hoope" is not the right spelling

Oh, you must have read an earlier version, fixed it earlier today...

• "were since proposed" might be better as "were proposed since"

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• "that variants of the bird" > "that variants of the hoopoe starling"
• "placed the bird in its own" > "placed the hoopoe starling in its own"

I didn't use the modern name in those cases because those authors did not know it to be a starling yet. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How about for the first one "De Flacourt's "tivouch" led other early writers to believe that many variants of the bird existed on Madagascar and the Cape of Africa." Also, maybe mention the synonyms at the end of that paragraph, if they are mentioned in Hume (2014). IJReid (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was only one for Madagascar and the Cape each. And isn't it redundant to mention they are synonyms, when the following statement is made after the final synonyms are mentioned: "Fregilupus varius remains the valid binomial today, as it is oldest, and all other scientific names are synonyms" FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• sturnus > Sturnus

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• It should mention that all the variant names are now junior synonyms

Added that they are synonyms, but not all are actually junior synonyms, since some are older... They are just wrong combinations, such as the Upupa ones... FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a more complete cladogram? Possibly with the Rodriguez and Maurititus starlings?

Sadly no, those species were not included, and perhaps never will, being subfossils only. But maybe in the future, with better technology... FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Things for FAC

To be continued...

• I'm not certain that the current image is the best for the taxon box. Thoughts?

Had a little discussion about it here:[1] The thing is, it is the only image we have that accurately depicts the bird (and in life at that), apparently... Even the mounted specimen has a backwards pointed crest, which is supposed to be incorrect. If only we had a photo of a mount with a correctly posed crest... I've added a note to the infobox caption. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• All the images should have alt text.

Not sure if that is a requirement anymore, haven't been brought up during the last bunch of articles I nominated. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to close this review, as a pass! I would give more comments for FAC, but the article is pretty good and pending a copyedit, so I think there is nothing else to do. IJReid (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and feel free to add any comments you think of subsequently... FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Once the copyedit is completed, I will give the article another look through. IJReid (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2014 (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.