GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk · contribs) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Great to see more from you; I'm happy to offer another review. Thoughts to follow. J Milburn ( talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Done, and can't believe I didn't mention the island in the lead, must be because of all the other articles I've worked on with very similar intros...
Done.
I'll change it to grey.
I removed the sentence, was a weird remnant of the old version.
I added the Red Rail image, but since the other one in the taxobox, I've just placed it in a section where it is mentioned.
Yes, that's a remnant of the old version of the article, perhaps I could break up the quotes so one comes under description and the other goes under behaviour? Then the paraphrasing could be cut down.
Done, were both taken from elsewhere.
Done, it was also without a citation template, which was overlooked in the Solitaire FAC.
Yes, I'd love if there were more recent sources, but the bird is extremely obscure, and often overshadowed by the Red Rail, and just mentioned in passing. Perhaps because it was never depicted alive. The Günther source is the most comprehensive osteological account.
I'll add it.
I was thinking the same at one point, but thought the bones were more reliable. Storrs Olson called it "fanciful", and I think the eye patch might be exaggerated, compared to the descriptions. But yes, it is nice to look at, so I think I'll switch.
Hope these thoughts are helpful. I'll give the article another read through once you've responded to them (or not, as the case may be).
J Milburn (
talk) 19:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, the repetition is still grating on me a tad, and I think the bunched-up illustrations would annoy a lot of people. Perhaps lose the frontispiece, bring together the bones into Template:Multiple image and move the Red Rail pic to the right? Other possibilities- put one of the bone pics as a second taxobox image and consider losing the Red Rail (my advice may be a long way from perfect...) J Milburn ( talk) 16:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk · contribs) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Great to see more from you; I'm happy to offer another review. Thoughts to follow. J Milburn ( talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Done, and can't believe I didn't mention the island in the lead, must be because of all the other articles I've worked on with very similar intros...
Done.
I'll change it to grey.
I removed the sentence, was a weird remnant of the old version.
I added the Red Rail image, but since the other one in the taxobox, I've just placed it in a section where it is mentioned.
Yes, that's a remnant of the old version of the article, perhaps I could break up the quotes so one comes under description and the other goes under behaviour? Then the paraphrasing could be cut down.
Done, were both taken from elsewhere.
Done, it was also without a citation template, which was overlooked in the Solitaire FAC.
Yes, I'd love if there were more recent sources, but the bird is extremely obscure, and often overshadowed by the Red Rail, and just mentioned in passing. Perhaps because it was never depicted alive. The Günther source is the most comprehensive osteological account.
I'll add it.
I was thinking the same at one point, but thought the bones were more reliable. Storrs Olson called it "fanciful", and I think the eye patch might be exaggerated, compared to the descriptions. But yes, it is nice to look at, so I think I'll switch.
Hope these thoughts are helpful. I'll give the article another read through once you've responded to them (or not, as the case may be).
J Milburn (
talk) 19:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, the repetition is still grating on me a tad, and I think the bunched-up illustrations would annoy a lot of people. Perhaps lose the frontispiece, bring together the bones into Template:Multiple image and move the Red Rail pic to the right? Other possibilities- put one of the bone pics as a second taxobox image and consider losing the Red Rail (my advice may be a long way from perfect...) J Milburn ( talk) 16:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)