Talk:Kea/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 07:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, will try to do this soon. AryKun (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a first look, there are a lot of issues with the article.
The lead is far too short and does not mention nearly enough information about the species to be a comprehensive summary about it.
The sourcing in the article is weak – several sources have dead links, while others are outdated or not reliable enough for a GA (eg the TV documentary). Ideally, most of the citing should be to peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles. Far too much of the current references are newspapers or magazines, which are not good enough for a GA, imo.
Many citations are improperly formatted and do not contain any links (in case of websites) or DOIs (in case of journal articles).
The image sandwiching in the description section needs to be fixed.
A good article to try and emulate while editing this would be Kererū.

The phrasing in the first paragraph could be made more encyclopedic.
The Helm Dictionary (freely viewable on BHL) would be a better reference for the specific epithet.
The systematics section feels skimpy: typically it includes the first documentation of the species, the formal description, and the etymology, along with any alternative common names, changes in the species taxonomic status (like being moved to a different genus or family), and the species' relationship with other closely related species, with a cladogram if available. See Guadeloupe woodpecker and Algerian nuthatch for examples.
The last couple sentences explaining the Strigipoidea are way overcited, sometimes with unnecessary sources like a 20-year old book that is in no way a good reference for what our current understanding of the Strigipoidea is.

Needs information about vocalisations, nothing is currently present.
Description also feels rather short, compared to for eg kākāpō. Although it doesn't need to be as detailed as that, a slightly more detailed description would be better.

Distribution should not be cited to news articles, but to more appropriate sources like journal articles and books.
The opening sentence could just be merged with the following para.

"there was a surplus of females" → Is this really relevant, considering that this information is nearly 60 years old?
"Isolated individuals do badly in captivity, but respond well to seeing themselves in a mirror" Has very little to do with breeding.
" expected to be over 20 years of age" → Not related to breeding and needs to be updated since it's based on a 30 year old study.
"The oldest known captive kea was 50 years old in 2008" → Again, very little to do with breeding and should be moved somewhere else in the Behaviour and ecology section. Also somewhat dated and needs an update.

There are just three sentences about the kea's diet excluding sheep. While the fact that the kea attacks sheep is interesting, it should be about 10 times the size of the rest of the diet. I would expect to see more detailed information on the kea's hunting strategies, the average proportion of each food source in its diet, any adaptations that it may have developed for hunting, and any changes in its diet caused by the arrival of humans (if any of this is available).
"Tool use behavior ... preening habits." → Not related to feeding at all.
"proving that ... to escape" uncited

This is almost entirely cited to news articles instead of scholarly articles.
" The kea's ... for tourists" Uncited
"the clown of the mountains" A nickname used once on a now-dead web page doesn't seem noteworthy.
" Kea have ... in captivity" Uncited
"A kea has ... tourist's passport" This is so insignificant that's it's not even worth mentioning. An encyclopedic article is not a collection of random trivia.

This is just a collection of trivia that includes mentions of kea. Instead, they should mention actual cultural references, like the importance of kea in traditional Māori culture and in contemporary NZ. See for eg red panda
"Kea are ... Shadow." dubious notability and uncited
" The youngest ... the bird." dubious notability
" In the video ... player's items" Completely non-notable and wikis are not reliable sources

Honestly, at this point I'm inclined to fail the article, given that it fails nearly every GA criteria given below, and needs a substantial amount of work that doesn't seem like it could be done on a GA review timescale.
I would recommend looking at some other bird GA's and getting a general feel for what they usually have, and asking for the help of some more experienced editors at Wikiproject Birds before renominating.
KakarikiNZ. AryKun (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Another ping for the nominator. KakarikiNZ. AryKun (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will be failing the article as there are many significant outstanding issues with the article. It has been around 2 weeks since my first comments and nearly a week since I finished adding comments for the whole article, but no work has been done since. The nominator has additionally not edited since 25 July, so it doesn't seem like the problems with the article will be fixed anytime soon. AryKun (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]