Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a44e49600de1ceb4

Jump to content

Talk:Flammulated flycatcher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Rufous-crowned Sparrow in topic GA Review
Good articleFlammulated flycatcher has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 31, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Flammulated Flycatcher (pictured), a tyrant flycatcher endemic to Mexico, was eventually placed in the monotypic genus Deltarhynchus because of its broad bill?

Relevance of specific epithet to bird

[edit]

I am assuming the flammulatus refers to the orange mouth or flash of cinnamon plumage but don't have a reference for it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flammulated Flycatcher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Very good read. I believe it meets the Good article criteria and can be listed. Good prose, well-cited, neutral. I think it meets the completeness criterion as well. The editor seems to overuse the word 'this' a bit near the end (e.g. 'this species') over and over, so maybe some of this could be rephrased a bit. Although I don't think that's a reason to deny GA status at this time.

Good work! Dr. Cash (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. I'll work on the "this"es near the end of the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply