![]() | Rodrigues rail is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 31, 2020. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
![]() | Rodrigues rail is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 31, 2020. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)