Talk:Rock wren/GA2

GA review

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

Nominator: Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk · contribs) 20:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Independentgeoscience (talk · contribs) 02:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to note that this is my (User:Independentgeoscience's) first GA review. It will not be perfect.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Article is quite readable with a solid flow, however, some minor corrections, such as italicizing the title of the book that describes the rock wren. I do feel that the lead could be maybe a paragraph longer, expanding into depth about behavior especially when you have so much in that section. Finally, the article could be broken up into paragraphs some more to make it flow a little better. Not required of course, but I'd love to see a cladogram depicting the different subspecies, and maybe more images. Final note: on the subspecies, it appears that S. o. obsoletus is repeated.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are cited with appropriate linking, and where needed, passages are provided, ex. Source 1, Thomas Say et. al. All sources properly link at this time.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Generally, yes. Discusses other species and doesn't hyperfixate on rock wren.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Bias is not present, with sources cited for each paragraph and data expressed accurately according to sources cited.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars, subject is not contested.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Awaiting minor corrections, and will approve once complete! Good work!

@Independentgeoscience: I think I've addressed most of the issues you raised - there really isn't anything missing in the lead, though, so I didn't add anything for that. Cheers, and thanks! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I feel quite confident, and happy to promote to a GA. Thank you for editing! Independentgeoscience (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this GA review is not good. Is this article applicable to be GAR'd? User:Chipmunkdavis? ~2026-21530-2 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi 2026-21530-2, if you have specific concerns with the review, please raise them first with the reviewer or discuss this at WT:GAN. In general it is easier to discuss a recent review and adapt if needed, rather than go into a GAR. CMD (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Most of the issue that Jens Lallensack pointed out were not yet addressed, especially the outdated 2021 BOW source and its comprehensiveness. ~2026-20939-6 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Which issue(s)? The 2021 BOW source is only missing a few (2 new articles focused or largely about the rock wren) articles about the rock wren (Salpinctes). The remaining sources are just brief mentions without any detail, or about the New Zealand rock wren. (search query) monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)