Wikipedia:Peer review/Rodrigues Solitaire/archive1

Rodrigues Solitaire

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to good article status. There is very little info about this bird outside descriptions which are many centuries old, so it's unlikely there'll be enough material to get it featured.

Thanks, FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Well, it seems to have already achieved GA status, and it's an interesting article. So I'm not sure what kind of feedback you'd like at this point. I don't see why it couldn't get to FA...there has to be some more context you could build around it that would help frame the article in a more comprehensive way.

What do you mean by more context?

• Here are some things I'm noticing, in case it's of use.

• In the lead, I like "The closest extant relative" instead of "living relative". I think "extant" is a more precise antonym of "extinct", although perhaps "living" is more accessible. Just a quibble.

Done.

• "with males being much larger than females" should be rephrased. See WP:PLUSING. Probably best is to put a full stop before it and start a new sentence saying males were larger, etc.

Done.

• Rephrase: "with the female being lighter"

Done.

• "bony knobs on their wings, which they used in combat" -> "bony knobs on their wings used in combat"

Done.

• Remove: "The specific name is a reference to the bird's solitary habits." and add its solitary habits as the source of its name on first mention of the "Solitaire". This part is also unsourced.

Done in a moment.

• "erected the new genus name" -> "selected". I've never heard of anyone erecting a name.

I wrote named instead, though taxonomic names are often said to have been "erected". There was an amusing example of this in the Megalosaurus article, in relation to the synonym "Scrotum humanum"...

• "more evidence led Raphidae to be demoted to a subfamily" -> "more evidence led to Raphidae's demotion to a subfamily"

Done.

• "It has also been interpreted" -> "Genetic evidence has also been interpreted"

Done.

• "erection of a new species" -- is this a scientific term?

Changed.

• "The Rodrigues Solitaire was described by one observer as being the size of a swan" -> "One observer described the Rodrigues Solitaire as the size of a swan." (avoids passive voice)

Done.

• "Sexual size dimorphism in this species is perhaps the greatest in any carinate bird" -- well, is it, or is it not?

The source says perhaps.

• Rephrase: "with females being paler than males"

Done.

• "François Leguat's rather crude depiction" -> " François Leguat's depiction" (POV)

The sources actually call it that, I could maybe write "simple" instead?

I hope this is helpful.--Batard0 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, as it's now GA, I think the next goal is FA, so any comments relevant to that process would also be nice. I'll adress your points here soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of your suggestions have been addressed now, apart from the ones I've added questions to. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)