Talk:Guadeloupe woodpecker/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like a nuthatch? Reading now anyways ;) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

monomorphic – wrong link I think. I would simply write "there is no sexual dimorphism".
lives mainly in the areas of tropical rainforest of the island – which island? You were only mentioning an archipelago.
An endemic and sedentary species … – Sentence is extremely long, I suggest to split it up.
The juveniles stay with the parents for a long period – I think too unspecific, you could just state how long.
although they also feed on two kinds of small vertebrates – certainly only the two kinds that have been reported?
islad topography – no idea what this is
The Guadeloupe woodpecker was given its scientific name Melanerpes herminieri – who did the first description?
before being definitely classified – we need a secondary source for "definitely"; if you don't have one, I would remove this.
However, the phylogeny of the genus Melanerpes – do you mean "the phylogenetic position of the genus …"?
more present on Basse-Terre – "more common"?
it is totally absent from all the dependencies of Guadeloupe – what are dependencies of Guadeloupe?
Exclusively sedentary species, – "An exclusively sedentary species"
in the tropical rainforest areas which regroup – regroup?? Rainforest can't regroup?
Basse-Terre – better introduce what this is (island? area on island?) at first mention
shady massif – what is a shady massif?
wingtips (averaging 13.5 cm (5.3 in) in length – tips can never average in length.
a non-colony and non-group animal – solitary animal?
The legs - consisting of four fingers – hands have fingers, feet have toes.
The pterygoid protractor muscle – doesn't make sense to link to the bone
to the square bone – never heard of the square bone, is this a typo?
Stopping here: Article still needs substantial work to get to GA level. We especially have a problem with "criterion 1: well written". The article contains many extremely long sentences (e.g., the second sentence of the lead); those sentences just give too much at once and are hard to follow. Could you try to split longer sentences and simplify, and also check if every information makes sense to you. I would then do another attempt. But at the moment, there are simply too many issues for me to get through. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely take this to G0CE. Unlike nuthatch articles that are written properly, I will agree this one right now, you can fail the review right now and maybe I will renominate it again very soon (not sure yet, this isn't nuthatch article somehow). Thanks for taking it! Translating a featured article is a bad idea. Will probably do the last one Corsican nuthatch soon. 2001:4455:364:A800:2997:C5A8:292E:A6C1 (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do that, then, giving you time to bring it within distance to GA. I am sure the French original is well written, but as soon as sentences get slightly more complicated (which is the case here), 1:1 translation just doesn't work. You need to fully understand the French sentence first, and then formulate your own sentences in English. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]