Talk:Nauru reed warbler
![]() | Nauru reed warbler 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 March 25, 2015. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 28, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Nauru Reed Warbler is found exclusively on the remote Pacific island of Nauru? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Nauru reed warbler be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Nauru may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Nauru Reed Warbler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oof, this will be like the apprentice teaching his master! The article looks good, and I have a few suggestions that could be taken or left. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- First, in search of an image, I found the original description, which could be cited:[1][2] There are a few things that are not mentioned here, for example who the species was named after, which could maybe bolster the taxonomy section. Also since the article seems a bit short on references.
- Added a couple of quick cites- I'd rather not rely too heavily on such an old article, but I've got a solid description from a much more recent sources anyway. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- On that note, seems it was named in 1883, not 1885 as the taxobox says. Also confirmed by Birdlife.[3]
- You're right. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You could add the synonym parameter to the taxobox for Calamoherpe rehsei and the subspecies combinations?
- Isn't the "to" redundant here? "darkening towards to the tip."
- Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps the following sentence will confuse the general reader: "When recognised as a species, it is considered monotypic." Perhaps clarify that means there are no subspecies?
- Likewise, this sentence in the intro may be hard to swallow for the uninitiated: "Although no details of infrageneric placement are known"
- The placement of "variously" seems a little odd to me here: "There are reports variously of eggs in December and July" Does it mean that the reports disagree?
- Rejigged- clearer? J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the last S be removed here? "local to the species's range". On the other hand, I found this[4], so I'm not sure.
- Both are acceptable, but I certainly prefer my way- The world species' is ambiguous- to me, that means "it belongs not to one specie, but to many species", as opposed to "it belongs to this one species". J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Phosphate mining in Nauru could be linked when it is mentioned.
- Done- good find! J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's all from me, though I really want to find an image of the bird. I'll add it if I do. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Damn, seems we were only two years away from this image[5] being in the public domain![6] FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps this stamp could be used:[7] I'm not sure what the date is, though. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strike that, seems it's from 1976. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had a good hard look for an image, but to no avail; it's something that may crop up in time, but I won't hold my breath! If we can find a Wikipedian in Nauru, I gather they're like sparrows over there... J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strike that, seems it's from 1976. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps this stamp could be used:[7] I'm not sure what the date is, though. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Damn, seems we were only two years away from this image[5] being in the public domain![6] FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review- I'm particularly excited about the original description, which I searched for but somehow managed to miss. I'll be sure to go through that closely. I'll get to your comments at some point in the next couple of days. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good now, for a potential FA, maybe permission should be asked for a picture somewhere... FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Thanks for your careful review. I do think that this one may have FA potential, but there a few little bits I want to work on first- trying to get hold of an image is certainly one of them! J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
photo
[edit]Yes, this article really needs a picture of its subject, as opposed to once-considered-same-species from elsewhere. There's even a picture of one on the $1.50 stamp series, so surely there are a number of non-copyrighted pix out there. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- There are stamps, yes, but who says they're non-copyrighted? FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've not been able to find any evidence that Nauru stamps are PD. I've spoken with Donald Buden, but he didn't have a photograph. He put me in touch with someone who had some, but she didn't send me one. No one who hasn't visited Nauru will have a picture, while I suspect that people from Nauru wouldn't have any reason to take a picture! I agree that it would be really valuable to have a picture, but I've not been able to get one, sadly. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to all the contributors
[edit]Wonderful article.
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles
- FA-Class Micronesia articles
- Low-importance Micronesia articles
- FA-Class Nauru articles
- Low-importance Nauru articles
- Nauru work group articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Nauru
- WikiProject Micronesia articles
- FA-Class bird articles
- Low-importance bird articles
- Wikipedia requested images of birds
- WikiProject Birds articles