# Talk:Blyth's kingfisher

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blyth's kingfisher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 02:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this soon. First impression, I think you should swap the position of the two illustrations, since the one currently in the taxobox shows behaviour, and the one under behaviour seems to be of higher quality and therefore shows the colouration of the plumage better. Too bad we have no photos! But perhaps a range map should be created. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for picking this up. Images swapped as suggested. I'm afraid creating range maps is well outside my technical ability. I also am skeptical of how useful such a map would be at the moment, because there is a fair degree of uncertainty over its status in Bangladesh and such; it would be a very rough map at best. Vanamonde (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
On the map, it isn't necessary for GA, but if you want to take it to FAC, it is a must; all bird FAs have a range map. Even if there is some issue with its exact range, we usually have maps based on the IUCN, this bird's map is here:[1] If it ever becomes relevant, I can make a map, or you can request one at the bird project. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
True. I'm not likely to take it to FAC in the immediate future simply because of a paucity of material, but if this changes, I will keep your suggestion in mind.
"The species was scientifically described" It is always good to use the full name of the animal first time you refer to it outside the intro.
Done.
Why was it named after Hercules?
Unclear: source does not say
"It was previously referred to as Alcedo grandis, but that name is no longer in use." Why, and when was this name coined, and by who? Seems this should be elaborated.
Source says the name was preoccupied, which I've added; no more details appear to be available (I've really scoured the sources, but as with many species in hard-to-access parts of the global south, information is hard to find, or non-existent).
" between 22 and 23 centimeters" Give conversions for all measurements. I see many more throughout the article lacking conversions.
It goes a little against the grain for me to introduce non SI terminology into a scientific article, but okay. Added.
It is the norm for animal articles, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
"aren't as brilliant" Contractions are generally advised against.
Reworded.
You are inconsistent in whether you mention scientific names after common names when you mention new species.
Fixed, I think: scientific names used in the lead and in the first mention in the body.
"The parents are known to "sit very tight"" Why is a direct quote needed?
Not needed, quotes removed.
"waterways in situated in" Seems it should be removed.
Done
"The bird breeds in northeastern India." As opposed to everywhere else in its range? If not, why mention that place specifically? You also say "In China, the species is estimated to have fewer than 100 breeding pairs", so I assume it also breeds there?
I guess this is a source being location specific without saying so. Removed that fragment.
Perhaps the last paragraph under "Habitat and distribution" should be split off into a "status" section, as in most other promoted bird articles.
Done. @FunkMonk: Thanks for your suggestions, which were on point: I've addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me now, so will pass. There is still one mention of "breeding in northeastern India" under behavior. FunkMonk (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)