Talk:Sandgrouse

	Sandgrouse 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 Date Process Result September 16, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Birds Top‑importance Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images ). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

I've reverted unsourced change of order - sandgrouse are related to pigeons, not storks. jimfbleak 06:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Sandgrouse/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will read the article and add some comments as I go along. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Maybe use "extant" instead of "living" in the intro?

No longer relevant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you mention that only the members of this family are living, which are not? The fossil record, if there is one, seems to have been overlooked in the article. Such info could be added in the taxonomy section.

I have found no reference to there being any extinct species or fossil record. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in that case the articles didn't have to be split, since they have the same content.

• The article states it is about the family, but Pteroclidiformes redirects here. So if there is no difference in membership between the two, that's fine, but if there are fossil members, they should be mentioned, and the article should expand its coverage to the order level. Otherwise it might be better to separate the Pteroclidiformes article so you don't have to cover species outside the family.

I have made a new Pteroclidiformes article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be nice to mention how the different species are interrelated, if you can find any info on this. Perhaps a cladogram, if available.

I looked online for information on this topic and couldn't find anything useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can, it would be nice to add the name and date for who coined the genus names in the taxobox.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are the following sentences in the distribution section? "Members of the genus Syrrhaptes are distinguished by having feathered legs and toes and no hind toe." "Members of the genus Pterocles are characterized by having legs feathered just at the front, unfeathered toes and a rudimentary hind toe raised off the ground." It would probably be better to incorporate them in the description section or in the taxonomy section.

I have moved this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You are not consistent in wikilinking species names when mentioned in the article, and the ones in the intro are not wikilinked. Words like down and hind toe (hallux) could maybe also be wikilinked, and there are generally a lot of words that could be wikilinked (names of other animals, diet items, places, anatomical features).

I have done some more wikilinking. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a few more relevant images could be added to the article? If there are some that show peculiar physical traits or behaviour (breeding? Juveniles?). It could also be nice to add a range map.

Done. I have added a range map for one species but I am not sure it helps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant more for the family as a whole. But it isn't essential now, could be good for an FA. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The image licenses look good, an it is really nice that there are images of all species. The following two could be problematical though, as it does not seem clear who the authors are and when they died.[1][2] As there are alternative images available of those species, this is not much of a problem.

The author issue has now been fixed on Commons.

The rest looks fine, and I can understand if some of my comments can be hard to do anything about, so don't worry if the more obscure issues cannot be solved. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with all the points you raised above, though I failed on the taxonomy/cladogram idea. I have added a little more informtion I came across and a couple of new references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good. Maybe mention what species are in the gregarious picture? And another thing that just struck me, if you can, it would maybe be nice to mention what kind of predators hunt these birds? What is their ecological role? FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the caption. Added some information on predators. The actual predators concerned would be likely to vary across the range of the different species of sandgrouse. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great now! I'll pass this article, but I'll have to look up how I do so first... FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here

for what they are not)