Red-collared widowbird was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is well-written with a lot of information covering a range of topics, from mating systems to the specific morphology of the widowbird. The article was originally just one large chunk of text so I've broken it into generic sections, which led to the automatic creation of a table of contents. You can reorganize the paragraphs or put it into sub-sections in order to make the information clearer. Njoymusic2 ( talk) 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is as a whole well written. There are a few parts that need further clarification. The sentence: "Also, looking at body size and condition, this accounts for 55% of the variation in tail length" is confusing. I would recommend taking the part about variation in tail length completely but I think that should be the decision of the original author. The other part of the article that is confusing is the discussion of asymmetry. I couldn't tell whether it meant asymmetry in tail length or red pattern or whether it was something different. Again, this may be a little too much detail for a Wikipedia article. Gabriel.hassler ( talk) 05:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
For this article, I made some slight alterations to the writing style, editing for clarity proper grammar. I noted and changed several typos, and I changed some sentences for better flow and clarity. I also edited some content for correctness/clarity. I italicized scientific names and marked where citations might be helpful. I changed the “Sexual Dimorphism” section to “Morphology.”
I rather enjoyed the article. I would suggest expanding on the “Morphology” section. It would also be beneficial to state who conducts the studies mentioned, especially in the “Plumage” section. I would suggest clarifying the concept of asymmetry, as this portion of the article is slightly hard to follow. Finally, I would include more photos.
As an aside, I would love if there was some discussion of how the Red-collared Widowbird differs from the Long-Tailed Widowbird. The photo currently on the article seems very similar to the other species and some of the facts seem to match the Long-tailed Widowbird. This might be a reason to include the names of researchers. -- Cobiorower ( talk) 03:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)cobiorower
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MeegsC ( talk · contribs) 15:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC) I'll have a closer look over the next few days, but here are a few initial comments:
I'll go into more detail section by section once you've had a chance to address these more general issues, but it looks like you're off to a good start. I'm watch listing this page. Let me know if any of these comments need clarifying! MeegsC ( talk) 15:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Red-collared widowbird was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is well-written with a lot of information covering a range of topics, from mating systems to the specific morphology of the widowbird. The article was originally just one large chunk of text so I've broken it into generic sections, which led to the automatic creation of a table of contents. You can reorganize the paragraphs or put it into sub-sections in order to make the information clearer. Njoymusic2 ( talk) 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is as a whole well written. There are a few parts that need further clarification. The sentence: "Also, looking at body size and condition, this accounts for 55% of the variation in tail length" is confusing. I would recommend taking the part about variation in tail length completely but I think that should be the decision of the original author. The other part of the article that is confusing is the discussion of asymmetry. I couldn't tell whether it meant asymmetry in tail length or red pattern or whether it was something different. Again, this may be a little too much detail for a Wikipedia article. Gabriel.hassler ( talk) 05:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
For this article, I made some slight alterations to the writing style, editing for clarity proper grammar. I noted and changed several typos, and I changed some sentences for better flow and clarity. I also edited some content for correctness/clarity. I italicized scientific names and marked where citations might be helpful. I changed the “Sexual Dimorphism” section to “Morphology.”
I rather enjoyed the article. I would suggest expanding on the “Morphology” section. It would also be beneficial to state who conducts the studies mentioned, especially in the “Plumage” section. I would suggest clarifying the concept of asymmetry, as this portion of the article is slightly hard to follow. Finally, I would include more photos.
As an aside, I would love if there was some discussion of how the Red-collared Widowbird differs from the Long-Tailed Widowbird. The photo currently on the article seems very similar to the other species and some of the facts seem to match the Long-tailed Widowbird. This might be a reason to include the names of researchers. -- Cobiorower ( talk) 03:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)cobiorower
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MeegsC ( talk · contribs) 15:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC) I'll have a closer look over the next few days, but here are a few initial comments:
I'll go into more detail section by section once you've had a chance to address these more general issues, but it looks like you're off to a good start. I'm watch listing this page. Let me know if any of these comments need clarifying! MeegsC ( talk) 15:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)