Talk:Mauritius sheldgoose/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 06:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers an interesting topic appropriate for wikipedia. 91% of authorship is one user, FunkMonk. It is currently ranked a Stub class article, assessed on by Johnsoniensis and Rufous-crowned Sparrow on 13 March 2016 and 9 August 2007 respectively. Extensive editing has been carried out on 10 August 2021 and subsequently which has extended the article substantially.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No obvious spelling errors are identified.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article complies with MOS; the lead is appropriate in length.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citations are given, including for direct quotations. It may be helpful to break out the citations for Cheke & Hume, 2008, as they refer to different pages in the book.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All citations are from peer-reviewed journals or equivalent reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no obvious original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Confirmed with Earwig's Copyvio Detector that violation is unlikely.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The topic is covered extensively, including using contemporary sources appropriately to give greater context.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Summary style language is used. The article has 1,965 words of "readable prose" and so is of an appropriate length for the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The topic is potentially controversial (as it covers an extinct species) and is handled with appropriate balance. Different perspectives are presented where appropriate.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is not subject to a WP:WAR
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The majority of images are covered by appropriate creative commons or public domain tags, including the image Alopochen mauritianus.jpg which no has a United States public domain tag.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and appropriate, and include one of an Egyptian goose, which is related but not extinct, which is a nice inclusion.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article meets the criteria for a Good article.

@FunkMonk: This is very impressive. Please take a look at the comments above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look at the two issues that seem to have been brought up soon. In the meantime, is there anything about the wording or understandability off the article that irks you? FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Simongraham:, I've now modified the copyright tag for the taxobox image. As for the 2008 book, this citation style has been accepted in the past at featured article candidates (this article's ultimate destination), so should be fine here, as long as it is only a range and one page. I agree they should have been split up if there were more page ranges in the mix, though. And as stated above, feel free to bring up further points if you find any. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Great work. I have taken another look and I think this is ready for promotion. Congratulations. simongraham (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]