# Talk:Black catbird

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black catbird/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I will review this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
At first glance, the article seems a bit empty. There is this photo[1], which shows a more outstretched pose than any of the images used, and is therefore not too superfluous. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)  Done
The sections under behaviour seem a bit short. Could they be merged to one? Per:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this one: I used the guidelines suggested at WP:BIRDS#Guidelines for layout of bird articles. Personally, I think the subsection headers make information easier to find, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. If you and others think it makes more sense to merge them, then I will. MeegsC (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, not too important anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
"he assigned it to the genus Melanoptila, which he created at the same time.[3] It is the only member of that monotypic genus." Perhaps change to "he assigned it to the monotypic genus Melanoptila"? Seems a bit excessive to have two separate sentences. "The only member of the monotypic genus" is redundant anyway, since that is exactly what monotypic means.  Done
I'm not entirely sure if it would belong here, but perhaps explain what "catbird" refers to? Doesn't seem to be a natural grouping.
The gray catbird was named for its mewing call. I can find plenty of references with that info. I can also find plenty of references that say that the two catbirds are related. But I can find nothing (other than common sense) which says that the black catbird is called a catbird because it's related to the gray catbird. And since it doesn't make a cat-like call itself, that must be the only reason it's called a catbird! What do you suggest? MeegsC (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
If the sources don't explain it, not much you cna do! FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I could say something like "The black catbird is closely related to the gray catbird, which was named for its mewing call." Would that be useful?
Couldn't hurt! FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the Similar species section some kind of original synthesis, or do the sources actually discuss these species in relation to each other? If not, it might be problematic.
If you click on the reference link at the end of the first sentence of that section (reference 8) you'll see that that reference (Wrens, Dippers and Thrashers) specifically mentions those three species as possible confusion species. I have added more information than is shown in that reference. If that's not allowable, I can remove it. MeegsC (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Alright, stuff like that may become a problem during FAC, but I don't think it is here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Not much more to add I'd say. I assume you've added most of the info you could find about the bird? FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've added what I could find both online and off. MeegsC (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Since this already fulfils the GA criteria, I'll go ahead and promote it, though the last suggested addition has not been implemented yet. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)