# Talk:Fieldfare

Why does the paragraph, on the article page, refer to the Redwing and contain text nearly identical to text on the Redwing page, when this is the page for a different species, the Fieldfare? This needs to be corrected. BbGideon (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a para stating a difference of opinion about this birds conservation status. Not sure if this is helpful or confusing tho! Lonesometwin (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to modify your text. The RSPB status is only for the UK, at the extreme edge of the Fieldfare's breeding range. Only a handful of pairs breed so far south, but it's common and widespread across its main range. Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fieldfare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PumpkinSky (talk · contribs) 01:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
"Unusually for a thrush," sounds odd to me.  PumpkinSky talk 02:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
Ref 10 needs a publisher parameter.  PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"lores" needs linked to Lore (anatomy).
"There is a faint pale streak above the eye and the lores and under-eye" the two and's and two the's sounds awkward  PumpkinSky talk 02:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Ref 2 is a dead link. Is about.com a reliable source? Refs 3 and 5 need page numbers.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Good quality and all free.  PumpkinSky talk 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
English translation of Norwegian on commons would be nice.  PumpkinSky talk 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Thank you for taking on this review. I have dealt with the points you raise above and also polished up the lead section a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I have removed/amended the references you mention above with the exception of the "Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names". I don't have a copy so do not have a page number. Now added, as Jimfbleak has kindly supplied page numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)