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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 11:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having a go at it! Would make straight forward changes, and feel free to revert any of my edits in case of any mistake.

your changes look ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "At 9 to 11 cm (3.5–4.3 in) long" this could use the conversion template.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There should be something about taxonomy in the lead, for example about John Latham describing it.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " ...synonymy. though the name Myzomela dibapha was occasionally used. particularly" There are just two extra fullstops punched in.

not sure how that happened. comma-fied now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Link John Gould and Richard Schodde.

link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• New Caledonia should be linked too.

link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " ...The Wakolo myzomela, Sulawesi myzomela, Banda myzomela and New Caledonian myzomela were" per MOS:OXFORD, the comma list should be consistent. Later in the section, " ...to the Pardalotidae (pardalotes), Acanthizidae (Australian warblers, scrubwrens, thornbills, etc.), and the Maluridae (Australian fairy-wrens) in a " has a different comma list style.

I don't like Oxford commas but they are very very useful for slotting references behind if needed...so added one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we should have consistency. There are a few places like "Insects eaten include beetles, flies, bugs and caterpillars" where there is no comma before the and. So, would you prefer the Oxford commas or the other ones? I could change them according to the comma style you prefer. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

better to add commas for ease of reference-slotting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would be completing it by today, most probably (just have to study a bit more for tomorrow's exam).

• Link Queensland, (Gippsland, Victoria), New South Wales, omnivorous, and Syncarpia glomulifera.

links added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "... in early Spring (August) and" I think that the month of August falls in Summer (or Autumn), but not early Spring.

August is winter/early spring in the Southern Hemisphere (where I am, as well as the scarlet myzomela) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, din't know that. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Link fledged, wingspan, covert feathers, and incubate.

links added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has relatively long wings for its size; when the wing is folded..." I think it should be "It has relatively long wings for its size; when the wings are folded..." instead.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giving one more read now...

• Ref 25 does not have anything about scarlet myzomela (was archiving the web-urls, so I came across the issue).

you have to enter the name in the search box and it will show the data on the relevant species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Point number 3 is to be fixed.

done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I have commented on point number 6.

advised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rest is superb! Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Extremely stable.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Awesome article! Just few nit-picks there. It is a pass. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]