Talk:Sind sparrow/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 22:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I will review this. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• "also similar to the female Sind jungle sparrow" There should be consistency in which common name you use. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Done —innotata 01:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• "While the common South Asian subspecies of the house sparrow, Passer domesticus indicus, has a body about 15 cm (5.9 in) long, the Sind sparrow is 13 cm (5.1 in) long." I would switch these around, so the measurement for the subject of the article comes first. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Done —innotata 01:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• "Ernst Hartert considered it as a subspecies of the house sparrow" The resulting trinomial synonym should be mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Done —innotata 01:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• "but Doig and Claud Ticehurst both found the two species breeding side-by-side." Why does that exclude it being a separate subspecies?
  • I think I improved this. —innotata 01:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• "with speciation occurring as early as the Miocene and Pliocene." Would be nice to add how many million years ago this was.
  • Done —innotata 01:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Looking good. Not much more to add, I assume the info here is most of what's known about the bird. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed… —innotata 05:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• What's the meaning of the scientific name?
  • Will add. —innotata 05:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. —innotata 17:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• And is this image[1] in any way useful? FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Shyamal's plumage of the male is more accurate than the Keulemans illustration (which of course must have been based on a round skin). However, Keulemans' illustration has the only image of the female available so it ought to be in the description section, and it would be awkward to have Shyamal's image anywhere else in the article. Maybe it could be the taxobox image, or the Keulemans illustration could be moved to taxonomy… and that's why I prefer the current image choices personally. —innotata 05:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Alright, I'll go ahead and pass this then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)