# Talk:Bare-headed laughingthrush

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bare-headed laughingthrush/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tagooty (talk · contribs) 03:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


### Comments
Except for the bare-headed and black laughingthrushes, which are in the family/genus Timaliidae/Melanocichla, all other laughingthrushes appear to be in Leiothrichidae/Garrulax.  It would be worth writing about this in the Taxonomy section.
Not really, as the laughingthrush page says, all of Leiothrichidae was once a subfamily of Timaliidae before being split in 2018 along with three other subfamilies. Melanocichla was kept in Timaliidae because it's more closely related to the Old World Babblers than to the laughingthrushes. Weird common name misnomers like this aren't uncommon, since common names are usually based on similarities in appearance and so don't really reflect taxonomic relationships – just see warbler, robin, or wren for examples.
As there is a dearth of images in Commons, I suggest that File:AllocotopsCalvusKeulemans.jpg be added.
Done.
Tagooty, I've replied to the things you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Pinging Tagooty. AryKun (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@AryKun:  Thanks for the responses.  As this is my first GA review, I'm requesting one of the mentors to look at it. --Tagooty (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@AryKun: Thanks for responding quickly to the review comments.  Congratulations on your GA! --Tagooty (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


### Review
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Tagooty, it's been over two weeks with no progress on this review, any updates? 10:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


### Second look
I'll give it a second look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Just a reminder FunkMonk. AryKun (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Given below. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
"In 2006, Nigel Collar" You present other people mentioned with nationality and occupation. Also do it for other persons mentioned.
Added for Collar and del Hoyo, didn't add for Cai because he's simply not independently notable enough.
"found the bare-headed laughingthrush to be most closely related to the black laughingthrush." Seems to go without saying since they're already in the same genus?
Not necessarily, the study could have found the genus to be polytypic polyphyletic instead, morphology isn't always the best predictor of taxonomy.
"The study treated the bare-headed and black laughingthrushes as a part of Garrulax.[12]" This seems notable enough to state in the article body, as it seemingly overturns them being in their own genus. Also, if that's the generic name they use, the cladogram is misleading in using a different genus classification, the cladograms are basically citations that should not diverge from the source.
Doesn't overturn it, it's because they used Howard and Moore 2014 as their base for taxonomy, which hadn't split Garrulax yet. All later checklists agree on the generic split. Additionally, although they use Garrulax as the generic epithet in the text, in the cladograms (here) they use Melanocichla [Garrulax] calva as the name.
The article is pretty short, nothing more to add from Google scholar or handbooks?
Nope, looked through pretty much all the literature on it in the last 200 years and there's nothing more.
It's a bit funny that the other of info in the intro doesn't follow that of the article body.
Yeah, that's based on what I thought would be the most important in the intro, taxonomy is a more niche thing that probably should go below appearance and range in a bare-bones summary like the lead.
FunkMonk, I've replied to all your concerns. AryKun (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Seems fine then, back to Tagooty. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thanks for your review. Tagooty (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


### Drive by comments from MeegsC
The text says the species is found in Brunei, yet the map shows no evidence of that. One or the other needs fixing.
Well, the species' presence in Brunei is supported by both the IUCN and Myers 2016. The confirmed range in Brunei seems to be limited to the very tip of the eastern exclave, while the Myers field guide also mentions an unconfirmed population that may exist in western Brunei proper. The map doesn't seem too off, but I'll try to get it tweaked.
You could probably get away with not modifying the map if you just clarified in the text - a la "at the extreme eastern edge of Brunei's east enclave" or something like that. Just to indicate that it's not found in most of the country.
Check the citations; some of them are out of numerical order.
Done.
"American-French" sounds odd to my ear. Maybe "French-American"? After all, he was French first, then became American.
Done.
MeegsC (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks good! MeegsC (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@MeegsC: Thanks for your review. Tagooty (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)