Talk:Black imperial pigeon/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

Nominator: AryKun (talk · contribs) 09:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 18:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'll start working on this review. I have a subscription to BoW so at the very least I can verify from there. Good work on the rewrite; I'll give specific feedback when I find it's needed. Reconrabbit 18:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Text

Lead

• Y though I made a small change to the wording on flock size. Summarizes the article's content well.

Taxonomy and systematics

• Defining "clade" seems atypical of similar quality bird articles. The term is linked to a defining page anyway. Definition could be removed?

• I think the gloss helps since it allows readers to understand the jargon without having to click through to other articles.

• Fair enough.

Distribution and habitat

• (This might be an issue only because I can't verify Pigeons and Doves) does the species' vagrancy between these islands confirm they travel between New Ireland and New Britain or just suggest it?

• "Thought to be a vagrant to some small islands between New Britain and New Ireland, suggesting it moves between the two larger islands" is what P&D says. I changed the exact phrasing a bit because I didn't want to repeat "suggesting".

Behaviour and ecology

• "The only known black imperial pigeon nest was found in January" January 1994? Also reflected in the top (lead) paragraph.

• Done.

Status

• "Lack of sufficient population decline" is an awkward construction but I don't immediately see how this could be said differently. Y
• "Generally common locally in mountainous regions" Locally may be extraneous?

• It's not common throughout the mountains. from P&D: "Locally common in the mountains"

References

• Appropriate layout according to MoS. Y
• No copyright violations stemming from references. Prose is markedly different from selected phrases in the referenced documents (BoW) behind a paywall. Google search is down on the copyright-checking tool for now. I believe it passes muster Y

Checking sources

• [1] Y
• [2] Y
• [6] Y
• [7] Y
• [8] Y in most places but I don't see a confirmation on "silver-tipped imperial pigeon" here or anywhere else on the web.
• [11] Y

• P&D; I think GBooks has the page with the species account available as part of the preview.

Images

• One image that depicts the species. Quality is okay. License is appropriate. Y

Other notes/comments

• Neutral POV in writing. Y
• There isn't a lot of information on the species that I could find, but the work done in writing the article appears thorough given the scarcity of reliable research.
• No edit wars going on now or in the past. Y

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Reconrabbit, sorry for the long delay in addressing this, the page fell off my watchlist and I forgot about it afterwards. AryKun (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  No worries, I ended up forgetting too... I'll finish up the source review now that I have the page preview. Reconrabbit 23:25, 28 August 2024 (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.